From Monolithic to Nanoservice Architecture
Introduction
There’s no doubt that application architectures have evolved rapidly in recent years. The classic monolithic architecture has been broken down into a collection of microservices which is more flexible, and easier to deploy. However, while microservices have become very popular, there are some downsides to using this architecture. Recently, a more granular approach to distributed application components is becoming popular called nanoservices. Nanoservices aren’t a replacement for microservices, but they are good at addressing some of their shortcomings. They can provide better isolation and granularity.
Monolithic architectures
Monolithic architectures are common in traditional application development. In this model, all components of the application are built, deployed, and maintained as a single unit. This can make them easier to manage and troubleshoot. Monolithic architectures can also be more performant since all components are designed to work together.
A monolithic application typically uses a homogenous technology platform, which makes it difficult to build a monolith with heterogeneous technologies. Over time, a monolith can become highly complex to handle, making it difficult to achieve operational agility, scalability, and maintainability.
Microservice architecture
Microservice architecture is a style of software design where complex applications are composed of small, independent services that communicate with each other. This approach to software design is intended to make applications more scalable and easier to maintain. The small size of each service also makes it easier to deploy and test changes.
Microservices over monoliths
There are many reasons to prefer microservices over monolithic architectures. Microservices are easier to develop and deploy, they are more scalable, and they are more resilient to failure.
Microservices are easier to develop and deploy because they are independent of each other. This means that each microservice can be developed and deployed separately, without affecting the others. This is a big advantage over monolithic architectures, where a change to one part of the system can affect the entire system.
Microservices are more scalable because each microservice can be scaled independently. This means you can add more capacity to one part of the system without affecting the others. This is a significant advantage over monolithic architectures, where adding more capacity to one part of the system can affect the entire system.
Microservices are more resilient to failure because each microservice can be restarted independently. This means that if one microservice fails, the others can continue to run. This is a significant advantage over monolithic architectures, where a failure in one part of the system can affect the entire system.
Nanoservices Architecture
Nanoservices are smaller, more specialized, self-contained units of functionality that work together to provide a larger service. It is typically much smaller in size and scope than a microservice.
Nanoservices over Microservices
There are several key benefits of using a microservices architecture. However, for applications that require extremely low latency and high throughput, the nanoservices architecture may be a better choice over microservices. They are easier to develop and test, and they can be deployed more quickly. They are also more resilient because if one nanoservice fails, the others can still continue to function.
There are some challenges associated with nanoservices. However, it can be difficult to debug them, and they can introduce complexity into the overall system.
Overall, nanoservices are a promising approach for building distributed systems. They have many advantages, but there are also some challenges that need to be considered.
Summary
This blog discusses three main schools of thought when it comes to software architecture including monolithic, microservices, and nanoservices. Monolithic architectures are typically large and complex, with a lot of code dependencies between different parts of the system. Microservices architectures are much more modular, with each service being its own independent unit. Nanoservices architectures are even more granular, with each individual function being its own service.
There are pros and cons to each type of architecture. Monolithic architectures can be very difficult to change and scale because any change can potentially break the entire system. Microservices architectures are much more flexible and scalable, but they can also be more complex to manage. Nanoservices architectures are the most flexible and scalable, but they can also be the most difficult to manage.
The right architecture for a given project depends on a number of factors, including the size and complexity of the project, the team’s skills and experience, and the company’s culture. There is no one-size-fits-all answer, so it’s important to carefully consider all of the options before making a decision.
There are several key benefits of using a microservices architecture, including improved scalability, improved fault tolerance, and improved maintainability. However, the nanoservices architecture takes these benefits even further. By decomposing functionality into even smaller services, the nanoservices architecture allows for even more fine-grained scalability and improved maintainability. In addition, the use of simple, lightweight protocols for communication between services allows for extremely low latency and high throughput.
Refference:
[1] Implementing Nanoservices in ASP.NET Core (auth0.com)
[2] Nanoservices : The future of software architecture (neovasolutions.com)
[3] Microservices vs Nanoservices: Weighing Framework Options — BMC Software | Blogs
