Please see this post in techtarget -
http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/tip/What-does-microservice-architecture-mean-for-the-cloud?utm_medium=EM&asrc=EM_NLN_48284106&utm_campaign=20151005_How%20will%20microservices%20impact%20the%20cloud?_fchurchville&utm_source=NLN&track=NL-1839&ad=903312&src=903312
It is logical to think that micro-service architecture requires store-front service which hides all the complexities of various micro services. As the post says, it is also required multiple store-front services need to be chained externally. By breaking the architecture into this two dimension solution, it provides flexibility and reduction in complexity.
Since SFC kind of solutions can be used to chain multiple store-front services , scale-out, reliability are taken care by SFC solutions.
But the services hidden by the store-front services need to have similar scale-out and high availability properties. It means that store-front services need to be not only be providing a service, but also work as some kind of orchestrator of services working with VIM (virtual infrastructure manager) such as NOVA and Magnum to bring-up/bring-down micro-services they are front-ending.
It did not cross my mind that service VMs or service containers could be interacting with the schedulers. It certainly makes sense keeping this kind of architecture.
Great post from Tom Nolle on TechTarget. Really enjoyed reading it.
I wonder what kind of security requirements that would prop-up in this kind of solution architecture. I am guessing that security within the service would be a simpler solution.
Comments?
http://searchsoa.techtarget.com/tip/What-does-microservice-architecture-mean-for-the-cloud?utm_medium=EM&asrc=EM_NLN_48284106&utm_campaign=20151005_How%20will%20microservices%20impact%20the%20cloud?_fchurchville&utm_source=NLN&track=NL-1839&ad=903312&src=903312
It is logical to think that micro-service architecture requires store-front service which hides all the complexities of various micro services. As the post says, it is also required multiple store-front services need to be chained externally. By breaking the architecture into this two dimension solution, it provides flexibility and reduction in complexity.
Since SFC kind of solutions can be used to chain multiple store-front services , scale-out, reliability are taken care by SFC solutions.
But the services hidden by the store-front services need to have similar scale-out and high availability properties. It means that store-front services need to be not only be providing a service, but also work as some kind of orchestrator of services working with VIM (virtual infrastructure manager) such as NOVA and Magnum to bring-up/bring-down micro-services they are front-ending.
It did not cross my mind that service VMs or service containers could be interacting with the schedulers. It certainly makes sense keeping this kind of architecture.
Great post from Tom Nolle on TechTarget. Really enjoyed reading it.
I wonder what kind of security requirements that would prop-up in this kind of solution architecture. I am guessing that security within the service would be a simpler solution.
Comments?
No comments:
Post a Comment