Skip to content

0001-AdoptingServerlessArchitecture.md

Latest commit

 

History

History
87 lines (57 loc) · 2.88 KB

0001-AdoptingServerlessArchitecture.md

File metadata and controls

87 lines (57 loc) · 2.88 KB

Adopting Serverless Architecture

  • Status: Accepted
  • Date: 2024-10-05
  • Work Item: 0001-Serverless_Adoption

Context and Problem

As a tech startup, we must quickly build a scalable web application to meet growing user demand. Traditional infrastructure solutions would require significant time and resources, which we cannot afford.

Decision Drivers

  • There is a need for rapid development and deployment to stay competitive.
  • Limited resources for managing infrastructure
  • Unpredictable traffic patterns requiring automatic scaling
  • Minimizing operational overhead to focus on core development

Considered Options

  • Serverless Architecture (Azure Functions)
  • Traditional Server-Based Architecture
  • Containerized Microservices

Decision Outcome

Chosen option: "Serverless Architecture (Azure Functions)," because it allowed the team to focus on writing code without worrying about infrastructure management, provided automatic scaling, and minimized operational overhead.

Consequences

  • Good, because: Faster time-to-market, reduced operational costs, and improved scalability.
  • Bad, because: Initial learning curve and dependency on third-party services, leading to some vendor lock-in concerns.

Implementation

  • Set up Azure Functions for backend processing.
  • Integrate with other Azure services (API Management, Cosmos DB, etc.) as needed.
  • Monitor performance and make adjustments as required.
  • Train the team on serverless best practices and Azure tools.

Confirmation

  • Regular performance reviews and scaling checks
  • Continuous monitoring of costs and operational overhead
  • Feedback loops from the development team to ensure smooth operations

Stakeholders

  • Development Team
  • Operations Team
  • Product Management
  • Customers

Pros and Cons of the Options

Serverless Architecture (Azure Functions)

  • Good, because: Faster development, reduced costs, automatic scaling.
  • Bad, because: Learning curve, dependency on Azure, potential vendor lock-in.

Traditional Server-Based Architecture

  • Good, because: Familiar to the team, more control over infrastructure.
  • Bad, because: Higher operational overhead, slower to scale, increased time-to-market.

Containerized Microservices

  • Good, because: Flexibility, isolation of services, easier scaling than traditional servers.
  • Bad, because: More complex setup and management, still requires infrastructure oversight.

More Information

No more information available.

Follow-On Information

  • Regularly revisit the decision to ensure it continues to meet the startup's needs as it grows.
  • Document any significant changes or adjustments made to the architecture over time.

Record History

  • Proposed: 2024-10-01
  • Accepted: 2024-10-05
  • Last Reviewed: N/A
  • Deprecated: N/A
  • Superseded by: N/A
  • Date Superseded: N/A
  • Archived: N/A