Skip to main content

Containerization without a microservices approach

The current trends are clear. We should develop software applications using only microservice approach. This sounds goods for new application, where system requirements guides us to go with a microservice approach.
But what happens for the other types of systems. We might need to develop a normal web application, with some backend processing behind it. No crazy NFR, no need to scale to 100.000 RPS or similar stuff.

Monolithic application
As an example let us imagine that, we need to develop a web application that resize our pictures to Instagram size (1x1). There are no special requirements related to availability or scalability and the load on the system is a low. The system is used just by our employees (less than 5.000) for company images that needs to be published on commercial web sites.
Of course, we can imagine a state of the art microservice implementation, with different services that scale by themselves. What if we do not need something like this, but is very appealing for us to deploy the solution in a container using microservice architecture because we want to be able to scale easily and use the benefits that a container offer at CD (Continuous Delivery) level.
The so-called monolithic solution would contain a web application with a dashboard where user can submit their pictures and their email address. Some background process would receive the resize requests and do the hard work. With the new features of .NET we can manage background tasks inside the web application without any issues.

Nothing special, right? If we would go on microservice approach we would have many other services, but we do not want to go on this path. Let’s stay on the monolithic approach and see what we can do.

Containerization
We can take this two-layer application and deploy as one or to container, as presented below. Things can become too complex and hit scalability issues, but as long the load of the system not increase, nothing stop us to go on this approach.

In the end, if we look closer we have a standard application deployed inside a container and not inside a VM or an App Service. Nothing more than this, but with some additional benefits.

Benefits
Scaling: When we need to scale-up it is much faster by increasing the number of container instances, than creating a new VM. You do not need to manage the VM creation; the new instance is created automatically using the existing image and can be spin off in a few second.
Combined with a Load Balancer that stays in front of our container instances, things should look very good.
Better integration: No need to different deployments for each environment. The same configuration goes on all environnement.
No custom configuration: Because we use the same image container and we don’t care about the hardware configuration, there are no issues running our system. There is only one image that will run in the same virtualized environment. No specific configuration for deployment in location A or B.
Same environment: Development, testing, integration and production environments are the same. You don’t need to remember to set the flag XXYYZZ with value ‘Magic’ for production environment.
Orchestration: The current management solution that exist for containers are more powerful than the ones that we had until now. You can use out-of-the-box orchestration systems with notification and scaling mechanism that offers a much better availability time without having to configure complex clusters.

Closer to microservices
Yes, we said that we do not need a microservice solution, but we already know that microservices are here to stay. Using an approach like this you already done step 1, hosting your application inside a container. From there, based on your need you can split your application into services inside other containers when requirements will request this.
For example if you realize that, the background process, which make the picture resize consumes too many resources and you want to be able to scale it separately.  You can extract it to a separate container as an independent service.

Conclusion
From development perspective, most of us we would like to work with the latest technologies and architecture patterns. Even so, this is not possible all the time. Nothing stop us to use the power of containerization where we really need it.
Baby step!

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Windows Docker Containers can make WIN32 API calls, use COM and ASP.NET WebForms

After the last post , I received two interesting questions related to Docker and Windows. People were interested if we do Win32 API calls from a Docker container and if there is support for COM. WIN32 Support To test calls to WIN32 API, let’s try to populate SYSTEM_INFO class. [StructLayout(LayoutKind.Sequential)] public struct SYSTEM_INFO { public uint dwOemId; public uint dwPageSize; public uint lpMinimumApplicationAddress; public uint lpMaximumApplicationAddress; public uint dwActiveProcessorMask; public uint dwNumberOfProcessors; public uint dwProcessorType; public uint dwAllocationGranularity; public uint dwProcessorLevel; public uint dwProcessorRevision; } ... [DllImport("kernel32")] static extern void GetSystemInfo(ref SYSTEM_INFO pSI); ... SYSTEM_INFO pSI = new SYSTEM_INFO(

Azure AD and AWS Cognito side-by-side

In the last few weeks, I was involved in multiple opportunities on Microsoft Azure and Amazon, where we had to analyse AWS Cognito, Azure AD and other solutions that are available on the market. I decided to consolidate in one post all features and differences that I identified for both of them that we should need to take into account. Take into account that Azure AD is an identity and access management services well integrated with Microsoft stack. In comparison, AWS Cognito is just a user sign-up, sign-in and access control and nothing more. The focus is not on the main features, is more on small things that can make a difference when you want to decide where we want to store and manage our users.  This information might be useful in the future when we need to decide where we want to keep and manage our users.  Feature Azure AD (B2C, B2C) AWS Cognito Access token lifetime Default 1h – the value is configurable 1h – cannot be modified

What to do when you hit the throughput limits of Azure Storage (Blobs)

In this post we will talk about how we can detect when we hit a throughput limit of Azure Storage and what we can do in that moment. Context If we take a look on Scalability Targets of Azure Storage ( https://azure.microsoft.com/en-us/documentation/articles/storage-scalability-targets/ ) we will observe that the limits are prety high. But, based on our business logic we can end up at this limits. If you create a system that is hitted by a high number of device, you can hit easily the total number of requests rate that can be done on a Storage Account. This limits on Azure is 20.000 IOPS (entities or messages per second) where (and this is very important) the size of the request is 1KB. Normally, if you make a load tests where 20.000 clients will hit different blobs storages from the same Azure Storage Account, this limits can be reached. How we can detect this problem? From client, we can detect that this limits was reached based on the HTTP error code that is returned by HTTP