• LyD@lemmy.ca
    4·
    3 hours ago

    The architect is colouring all the balls

    The senior developer is arguing with the architect

    The junior developer is cannonballing somewhere in the middle

  • Dumhuvud@programming.devEnglish
    11·
    2 hours ago

    I’m so confused by the meme. What the hell is a “monolithic bug”? And what does DevOps have to do with software architecture?

    • SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev
      1·
      5 minutes ago

      Most DevOps spend our days designing and coding. We are deeper into architecture than anyone else, the dev team does not even consider deployment and uptime. We have to go to each separate teams meetings because our input is needed for many decisions. I had no idea that it was like this when I got into it.

  • peoplebeproblems@midwest.socialEnglish
    141·
    10 hours ago

    You know, this really has me pondering my projects architecture. We have tiers of services.

    At the top, we have the UI. Then we have a “consumer” an “orchestra” and a “data” tier.

    Data is the tier that exclusively talks to databases. Orchestra talks to the multiple data services. A good chunk of business logic is here. Consumer uses the orchestra and handles UI requests.

    All it essentially does is split the monolith into 3 services at minimum. And since it’s on the cloud, there’s a start up cost where we need to spin up 3 machines instead of whatever you can do with microservices. What benefit do I get?

    • adminofoz@lemmy.cafeEnglish
      4·
      3 hours ago

      Separation of concerns is a major benefit that shouldn’t be overlooked with security implications. Assuming you are properly restricting access to each worker node / “tier”, when one tier inevitably becomes compromised; it doesn’t result in the complete compromise of the entire monolith.

    • NewDark@lemmings.world
      41·
      6 hours ago

      If you aren’t a gigantic company with so many moving parts it would make your head spin… Probably not much? There is a benefit where you can individually scale your services based on need but that feels like overkill for most.

    • SleeplessCityLights@programming.dev
      1·
      20 minutes ago

      When I was a Sysadmin at a MSP, we had client with 2 main sites and multiple satellite sites. At one of the satellite locations there were two servers. The first ran a bunch of VMs and the second was the backup. If you disconnected the backup, the AD stopped working everywhere and half of the NAS storage was not reachable. As a far as anyone knew the second server was set to spin up replacement VMs if the first went down and nothing else. We were a pretty shitty MSP and never spent any time doing proactive work. So when that server dies, that company is going to have the most epic outage that will cost them a fortune.