PMBFU Data Communication in Microservice Architecture Question

Please read the case study paper on ” Data Communication in Microservice Architecture” and answer the following question.

Q1.  How is the performance of the monolith system increased by horizontal scaling?

See discussions, stats, and author profiles for this publication at: https://www.researchgate.net/publication/337200845
Case study on data communication in microservice architecture
Conference Paper · September 2019
DOI: 10.1145/3338840.3355659
CITATIONS
READS
11
4,245
3 authors:
Antonin Smid
Ruolin Wang
1 PUBLICATION 11 CITATIONS
1 PUBLICATION 11 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
Tom Černý
The University of Arizona
185 PUBLICATIONS 1,568 CITATIONS
SEE PROFILE
All content following this page was uploaded by Tom Černý on 11 June 2020.
The user has requested enhancement of the downloaded file.
SEE PROFILE
Case Study on Data Communication in Microservice
Architecture
Antonin Smid
Baylor University
Waco, TX , Texas
Smid_Antonin1@baylor.edu
Ruolin Wang
Baylor University
Waco, TX , Texas
Ruolin_Wang1@baylor.edu
ABSTRACT
Microservice Architecture is becoming a design standard for modern cloud-based software systems. However, data communication
management remains a challenge. This is especially apparent when
migrating from an existing monolithic system into microservices.
In this paper, we report on data synchronization and improvement of the data-source performance. We faced these challenges
in production-level development. Two case studies illustrate and
describe our approach. To address data synchronization we propose
using an automated data streaming system between databases. To
improve the performance of a data-source we introduced a solution with the distributed cache. We discuss the balance between
the performance and coupling and point out situations where our
architectures are appropriate.
CCS CONCEPTS
• Information systems → Enterprise applications; Data exchange; • Applied computing → Enterprise applications; Serviceoriented architectures; Enterprise data management;
KEYWORDS
Microservices, Cloud-computing, System Integration
ACM Reference format:
Antonin Smid, Ruolin Wang, and Tomas Cerny. 2019. Case Study on Data
Communication in Microservice Architecture. In Proceedings of International
Conference on Research in Adaptive and Convergent Systems, Chongqing,
China, September 24–27, 2019 (RACS ’19), 6 pages.
https://doi.org/10.1145/3338840.3355659
1
INTRODUCTION
Microservices [7, 12] are the latest trend in software design, development, and delivery. A number of benefits are often associated
with microservices, including faster delivery, improved scalability,
and greater autonomy. A greater autonomy also provides features
such as smaller code bases, strong component isolation, and organization around business capabilities. These benefits promise
improved maintainability over traditional monoliths.
Permission to make digital or hard copies of part or all of this work for personal or
classroom use is granted without fee provided that copies are not made or distributed
for profit or commercial advantage and that copies bear this notice and the full citation
on the first page. Copyrights for third-party components of this work must be honored.
For all other uses, contact the owner/author(s).
RACS ’19, September 24–27, 2019, Chongqing, China
© 2019 Copyright held by the owner/author(s).
ACM ISBN 978-1-4503-6843-8/19/09. . . $15.00
https://doi.org/10.1145/3338840.3355659
Tomas Cerny
Baylor University
Waco, TX , Texas
Tomas_Cerny@baylor.edu
In this context, it is not surprising that demand has grown for
migrating legacy monolith applications to microservices. The research in this area which provides design patterns and guidelines
on how to implement the migration is substantial. However, most
of these studies are from the macro architecture perspective, and
they target issues such as identifying candidates for microservices
on the monolithic system or separating these candidates into a
hybrid architecture [12]. In our work, we have discovered a number of implementation challenges with microservices which are
rarely mentioned, if at all, in existing research. These issues have a
significant impact on the performance of microservices.
One of the main challenges is how to manage data communication from the original monolith to the new microservices, and
between the distinct microservices themselves. A good design for
data communication of microservices will reduce overhead for system communications and improve data transmission performance..
In this paper, we introduce two architectures to improve data
communication performance of microservices by demonstrating
them in two case studies from our production-level systems. One
is about data synchronization between the legacy monolithic system’s database and the miroservices’ databases. The architecture
proposed here uses message queue and streaming platforms such as
Kafka [3] and Debezium [8] to automatically capture and synchronize database changes. The other case study shows how to improve
data communication performance between microservice instances
by applying the cache and message broker Redis [21]. For both
cases, we also compare our solutions with traditional approaches,
analyze the benefits and shortcomings of our solutions, and present
a discussion about it.
The remaining content is organized as follows. Section 2 reviews
related work. Section 3 provides background. Section 4 provides
a detailed analysis, architecture, and a description of the two case
studies. The final section concludes the paper.
2
RELATED WORK
The popularity of microservice architecture (MSA) has grown consistently over the past five years [5]. As an example of this just look
at the Google search trend for microservices during the last five
years 1. During this time, many businesses migrated their systems
from monolith or Service Oriented Architecture (SOA) into MSA
[7]. MSA has become core architecture concept for many big tech
companies [16, 20, 23]. However, microservices aren’t silver bullets,
and the difficult process of migration has drawn the attention of
the industry as well as academia.
Taibi et al. [27] conducted a study interviewing experienced developers and examined the motivations, issues, and benefits behind
migration to MSA. The study concluded that the critical drivers
RACS ’19, September 24–27, 2019, Chongqing, China
Figure 1: Google search trends for microservices
for migration are the overall maintainability and scalability. However, the main technical issues were monolith decoupling, database
migration, and data splitting.
Another empirical study with MSA practitioners [9] describes
the incremental migration. The researchers decompose the process
into three parts: reverse engineering – gaining knowledge about
the legacy system; architecture transformation – domain decomposition and applying domain-driven design practices; and forward
engineering – the actual implementation of the new system. They
recommend by adding new functionalities written as microservices
and then incrementally migrate the existing ones.
Knoche and Hasselbring [19] also highlight maintainability as
the key reason supporting modernization. They argue that monolith
systems are difficult to extend since any change requires extensive
testing and rework. And that limiting the number of entry points
and establishing platform-independent interfaces allows the future
evolution of the system to become more feasible. They describe
modernization from COBOL to Java and, for complex high-value
systems, they suggest to first define the service facades, then implement them in the legacy technology, and to finally re-implement
them again as Java microservices.
In 2017, Balalaie et al. [5] published a catalog of migration and
rearchitecting patterns derived from observation of several industrial projects. They provided general guidelines with a concrete
technology stack for implementing them.
One of the challenges with migration is the identification of the
microservice candidates on the monolithic system. Levcovitz et al.
[22] proposed a technique based on mapping the database tables
on business areas and facades, which creates a dependency graph
that can be used to identify the subsystems. In 2018, Zhongshan et
al. [25] went even further with a division approach which analyzes
both the application data model and the data flow.
Since the migration to MSA varies from project to project, many
authors published case studies concerning certain business domains.
Belalie et al. [4] reported their experience with migrating to a
cloud-native environment. They put emphasis on the continuous
delivery and importance of service contracts. The implementation
of a service can evolve, however service contract should remain
the same across all implementation versions.
Gouioux and Tamzalit [15] published a case study of migrating
large-scale system to MSA. They also highlighted the importance
of a good continuous delivery pipeline for its significant reduction
in deployment costs. This allows higher optimal microservice granularity. In regard to MSA integration, the authors argued in favor of
lightweight passive choreography over orchestration solutions like
the Enterprise Service Bus [7], which can be too heavy for MSA.
For the former, they report higher reuse of components as well as
significantly decreased response time.
Antonin Smid, Ruolin Wang, and Tomas Cerny
In 2018, Mazzara et al. [10] presented an extensive case study on
migrating a bank system. Many of their motivations were common:
the system had too many functionalities, the coupling between
components was too high, it was hard to understand, and the deployment was complex due to extensive testing. They have migrated
to MSA running at Docker Swarm and introduced choreography
based on the messaging system RabbitMQ [18].
Furda et al. [14] also see microservice migration as a promising technique of modernizing monoliths and elaborate on three
challenges: multitenancy, stateful and data consistency.
However, all these works lack when it comes to the data communication perspective and its optimization, which is addressed in
this work.
3
BACKGROUND
Monolithic architecture produce large systems that are deployed as
atomic units, which makes them hard to evolve or update. When
one component in such a system was modified, it usually meant
extensive testing and redeployment of the entire structure. Also,
scaling a single component meant scaling the whole application.
Microservice architecture aims to solve the challenges of monolithic systems. The main empathise is on systems’ modularity. Software built with MSA is composed of multiple component services.
So each of them can be tweaked, updated and deployed separately
without compromising the integrity of the application. Therefore,
the developers can update the system and redeploy just a single
module instead of the whole app. From the business perspective,
this also means that, instead of having different teams handling the
back-end, front-end, operations and quality assurance, each small
team owns a microservice. In other words, the team not only creates
it, but also takes responsibility for deployment and maintenance.
Microservices are usually deployed in service containers like
Docker [17]. An infrastructure like this requires an orchestration
system to provide the necessary features such as automated deployment, scaling, service discovery, load balancing or externalized
configuration. There are open-source container orchestration solutions such as Kubernetes [13] or Docker Swarm Mode that can be
used.
Each microservice defines an interface that other components
can consume, and the services communicate via RESTful APIs or
through a message broker. The message routing is simple. There is
no centralized element integrating the services; the governance as
well as the data management is distributed. This interaction style
is called dumb pipes and smart endpoints.
Since each service uses a different data-store, there is no need to
share the data model across the whole app (canonical data model).
Instead, each service operates on a subset of the data model in a
so-called bounded context [12]. Since each service specializes in a
different business case, naturally not all services need to operate
with all entities. A service may even consider only certain attributes
of some object and ignore others. For example, in our system, a
person management service uses all the information about users,
including the degree they pursue. However, our hotel service does
not need the degree attributes at all.
The challenge here could be how to maintain consistent data
states across various microservices that have distinct databases.
Case Study on Data Communication in Microservice Architecture
RACS ’19, September 24–27, 2019, Chongqing, China
Another challenge that one could run into is how to share newlyproduced real-time data with a large number of clients. These two
distinct scenarios are quite common and so they are what we will
be focusing on as our case studies in the next section. The case
study demonstrates an applied solution in deployed productionlevel systems.
For example, there are 100 rooms in the hotel system. Now, we
need to display a table to show room information as well as the
room holder’s information. If we have the data at one place, we just
need one query to get all the data we need. However, by using the
Rest API, we need to create 100 calls by the room holder’s identifier
to fetch their information from CMS or use a complex API which
contains all the room holder’s identifiers together as a URL body
and which will get a massive response with their information. Both
methods require a lot of data transportation which will reduce
the performance of the service, increase the design difficulty and
introduce inefficiency in the communication.
A better way to solve the problem is to replicate necessary data
from among services so that they are located in the database of the
interacting modules, which means each service has its local replication of the data. This approach normally preserves one writer and
multiple readers. What’s more, by identifying bounded context [12],
we could choose the necessary attributes for the shared elements
of the business model. This allows us to implement functions by
queries inside a particular microservice and reduce the cost of data
communication as much as possible with an acceptable storage payoff. However, this strategy works based on a good implementation
for data synchronization. We addressed this by using a streaming
platform Kafka and Debezium. This way, all changes in the master database get promoted to all other databases that replicate the
particular data fragments.
Context: There is a working monolith and a newly-introduced
microservice running alongside. The microservice has its own database and it replicates some fragments of the monolith’s database.
Problem: When the data change in the master database, how
to synchronize the data replicas in the microservices’ databases.
Solutions:
• (Not Suggested) Develop a scheduled job to extract all of the
records from the monolithic system database, then remove
and insert those records into the microservices’ databases.
This is very simple to implement but it does result in periods
where the data is out of sync. Also, the service will need to
stop for a while to undergo the data update. This could be
acceptable for some systems in which data is not updated
frequently, but this is far from ideal.
• (Not Suggested) Modify the monolithic system to add logic
that updates the records in the microservices’ databases
when updating the monolith database. This is easy to implement but is prone to problems with coupling and transactions. It needs the monolithic system to have a decent design
to handle events such as failures for both databases.
• (Suggested) Use a data streaming platform, e.g. Kafka, Debezium. Since we would like to reduce service coupling as much
as possible, we need each service to manipulate its own database. Thus, an ideal way to synchronize the database is to
send messages from the monolithic system to the microservice about what changes have made and make the microservice decide what to do for its own database corresponding to
the changes. For this purpose, data streaming and message
distribution can be used. One can build a message “Topic” between the monolithic system and the microservice. Then it is
necessary to build a producer in the monolithic system. For
each change in the monolithic system database, the producer
4
CASE STUDY
The International Collegiate Programming Contest (ICPC) [1] is
a multi-tier team-based programming competition. The contest
involves a global network of universities hosting competitions that
advances teams to the ICPC World Finals. Participation has grown
to tens of thousands of the finest students and faculty in computing
disciplines at almost 3,000 universities from over 100 countries.
The scale and distribution of the ICPC system creates a difficult
management problem.
The ICPC Contest Management System (CMS) system is a web
application designed to simplify organization of the contest and
coordinate distributed execution. The two case studies are selected
from our project to migrate our old monolithic CMS system to a
modern microservices architecture.
4.1
Scenario 1: Data Synchronization
The motivation behind our first case study was increasing performance of a monolith system by applying MSA with separate
databases. We were looking for a solution that is able to synchronize
data between different databases efficiently.
For this study, we wanted to synchronize the hotel management
system and the ICPC CMS system. In the old version of the ICPC
system, both management systems are developed and deployed
together as a monolith application. This makes development, deployment, and maintenance difficult and complex. Thus, we decided to separate the hotel management system from the monolith
application as a microservice based on the functional distinction.
Accordingly, a database for the hotel microservice distinct from
the monolith database was introduced. This brought the following
benefits:
• Loosely coupled services; each microservice is self-contained,
which makes the microservice an atomic unit of failure instead of the entire application.
• Reduced load on individual database.
• Each service can use the type of database that is best suited
to its needs. For example, a service that does text searches
could use ElasticSearch [11]. A service that manipulates a
social graph could use Neo4j database [24].
However, introducing a microservice also brings challenges. The
most significant one is how to implement these features that need
data in the database of a separate module.
One way to solve the issue is to fetch data from other services using a REST API. This is a commonly used approach for inter-service
communication and could help to some degree. However, there are
still many problems preventing this from being a good solution.
First, relying on an API for communication creates a huge amount
of complex data communication between services for various use
cases. For example, in our case we manage hotel room information
related to person information which is managed by the CMS.
RACS ’19, September 24–27, 2019, Chongqing, China
Hotel UI
Monolith
contest management
Microservice
hotel service
DB
Connector
(Debezium…)
consume
produce
Hotel DB
Message Broker
(Apache Kafka…)
Figure 2: The architecture diagram for data synchronization
by using data streaming platform
produces a message containing the change information and
send it to the Topic. The microservice consumes the message
and performs the operations according to the data change.
In this way, the monolithic system does not need to care
about the manipulations in the microservice database, and
the microservice only listens to the Topic; there is not direct
communication between the microservice and the monolith
systems. This preserves independence for involved modules.
Using this approach, we still need to add logic code to produce messages according to database change although this
is easy to implement. With the help of streaming provided
by the Debezium platform, this approach could be more simplified and efficient. Debezium is an open source platform to
help capture the database changes and automatically produce
messages. Thus, basically it only requires a configuration
for the connection to the involved databases and indicate
the bounded context. Then the monolithic system can focus
solely on its purpose and there is not interference with the
business logic. Using this method, even direct changes to the
database by an administrator will be promoted to all replicas.
4.2
Scenario 2: Increasing Performance
The motivation behind our second case study was increasing performance of a monolith system by enabling horizontal scaling through
microservices. We were looking for a solution that is able to handle
high peaks in load, allow higher number of concurrent websocket
connections and preserves the legacy data.
The study relates to another ICPC system – MyICPC [2, 6]. This
system provides information for attendees of the World Finals event.
The application contains a feed of posts harvested from social media,
schedule, team information, scoreboard, gallery, and a challenge
game called Quest. The legacy version of MyICPC was a monolith
Java application with a server-rendered front-end. Although the application was deployed as ten instances in a high-availability cluster
[26], the performance was insufficient, leading to two challenges
to address:
(1) The overall performance did not grow with a number of
cluster instances, and the response time was too high.
(2) During the web traffic peak, the application could not handle
a load of concurrent connections, and request over a certain
threshold failed.
Antonin Smid, Ruolin Wang, and Tomas Cerny
First, we will look at the overall performance issue. The system
was designed as a monolith running at an application server, and
used a relational database. By deploying the application in a highavailability cluster [26] (multiple instances of the same server), we
were able to increase the availability and reliability, but not the
performance. The main reason was that all the instances shared
the same database but did not share any query results. This is
shown in Fig. 3 (before). Hence, the same query was often executed
many times by different server instances, and the database became
the system’s bottleneck. The second reason for the poor scaling
was the high overhead of the application servers running on each
separate machine. Since the system used a messaging service, the
application server had to run in full enterprise profile (Java EE),
which is by itself very heavy with respect to memory and resources.
Running multiple instances of the application server turned out to
be inefficient.
To enable efficient horizontal scaling, seven microservices were
separated from the system and communicate with a Javascript frontend. The original project was well organized in modules (timeline,
schedule, scoreboard…), so the decomposition was straightforward.
We have replicated the minimal set of common functions into each
service and rewritten the dependencies between modules as REST
calls. The services are highly configurable and independent. Therefore, only the necessary dependencies are included, and the final
production artifacts are quite small (~50MB). Moreover, these microservices may be run without the application server.
Since the majority of the database interactions were read-only,
the distributed data structure Redis [21] was introduced. It serves
as a cache (see Fig. 3 after). The distributed cache scales very well
with the microservices, since it only has one node to write to, but
many to read from. When the microservice performs a query on
the database, it saves the results into the cache using a JSON format.
Then, another microservice, looking for the same data, checks the
cache first. In case the data is changed in the database, the cache
record is invalidated. So, next time data is read, the cache is empty
and the microservice loads new data from the database directly.
With this design, much of the work is no longer dependent on the
relational database. Since a query is performed only once and until
the data changes all the consequent reads rely on the cache only.
Second, we needed to address an issue with real-time connections. MyICPC system should deliver real-time push updates to the
users through websockets. However, the previous version did not
handle more than a few hundreds concurrent connections, which
was not enough. To resolve this, we could exploit the pre-existing
microservice structure. We introduced a new microservice handling
exclusively real-time connections using Redis as a message broker (shown at Fig. 4). All the instances of this service subscribe to
dedicated Redis topic, and react on the messages by pushing them
to clients. Therefore, any microservice can send a real-time push
to clients just by publishing a message to Redis topic. Since the
microservice and Redis both scale independently on the rest of the
system, we could easily allocate more resources for for real-time
push delivery to prevent crashes during the World Finals.
Lastly, it is worth mentioning why we chose to go with a single
database rather than implementing a full microservice solution with
a separate database for each service. The main reason is that most
of the queries from our services are read-only. With the initiation
Case Study on Data Communication in Microservice Architecture
of a distributed cache, the database does not need to scale anymore.
Keeping a single database simplifies the migration process; all the
services can keep the same data model as the legacy system (or it is a
subset). The new system is natively compatible with the legacy data,
which is a great benefit. Usually, the preexisting data is ignored
in the legacy system as reported by Francesco et al. [9](page 34).
Moreover, there is no need to address synchronization issues as is
mentioned in the previous example.
We have separated parts of the system that needed to scale as
microservices. However, we still kept the monolith alive to be used
for content administration tasks, which do not need to scale. This
technique is called a hybrid migration pattern and was described
by K.Finnigan [12].
LoadBalancer
Physical Machine 1
PM2
Full Wildfly
PM3
Full Wildfly
FullApp
Full Wildfly
FullApp
FullApp
DB
before
after migration
Pod
4.3
LoadBalancer
Pod
PM
Pod
MS1
MS2
Full Wildfly
MS3
FullApp
read/write
DB
Distributed Cache
Figure 3: The original architecture diagram (top) depicts
several instances of an application server running the full
monolithic application on distinct physical machines using the same database. The new architecture (bottom) consists of containerized lightweight services which use a distributed cache as a primary data source. However, there is
still a remaining part of the monolith for services that do
not need to scale.
Client 1
websocket
RACS ’19, September 24–27, 2019, Chongqing, China
… Client z
ws
RTMS1 … RTMSx
MS1 … MSy
subscribe/receive push
generate event
Message Broker
Figure 4: Scalable real-time data delivery. One microservice is dedicated entirely to websocket communication with
clients, receiving events from other services through a message broker.
Discussion
Data synchronization: As mentioned in the first case study, when
migrating from monolithic system to microservices, applying a
separate-database architecture is a good practice which will bring
lots of benefits for the whole system. However, efficiently synchronizing data between different databases is a big challenge. We
introduce the streaming platform (Kafka) with the data change capture platform (Debezium) as an approach to address this challenge
since this approach is simple, efficient and preserves independence
for involved modules.
This solution works well in our system, but that doesn’t mean
this is universally the best solution for all scenarios. This approach
still has some limitations. For example, one limitation is that there is
overhead for deployment and maintenance for applying the streaming platform. Thus, this approach is not worthwhile in a situation
in which data rarely needs to be synchronized. In such case, adding
some simple logic to the master system is more acceptable. Another limitation of this approach is that the microservices need
to be synchronized under a similar data model with the master
system, and extra source code must be introduced. For example,
in our case study, the master database has two tables called person
and personinfo. There is a foreign key called personinfo_id in the
person table which connects these two tables. For the microservice,
we only need the attribute name from person and attribute address
from the personinfo table. Ideally, we would like to create only one
data model in the microservice called person_new which contains
id, name, address. However, this is not practical for a system with
Kafka and Debezium since Debezium could only fetch the data
change from a particular table. Thus, if some address is changed,
the microservice can only get the message that address is changed
in table personinfo but it won’t know which record in person_new
should be updated. Thus, we need to add new attributes personinfo_id in person_new table. As the relationship gets more complex,
so will the table since there is no element to match other than a
synthetic identifier. For a complex joined table, it would be more
flexible and efficient to have a message producer in the master system. Essentially, the design should be flexible and take the whole
system cost balance into consideration.
Performance increase: The design solution proposed in example 2 is not a pure microservice since the services share a single
database. However, the distribution is achieved by introducing a
distributed cache, which bring both advantages and drawbacks. The
RACS ’19, September 24–27, 2019, Chongqing, China
horizontal scaling is ensured by introducing a distributed cache, so
that the database experiences much lower load.
The positive aspects of this architecture are that the solution
scales well and does not require splitting the data model into
bounded contexts [7]. That makes the migration easier and saves
development time on rearchitecting the data model.
The overall complexity of the implemented solution is similar to
the legacy monolith, which is a benefit since MSA usually brings
replication [7]. Minimal common code is replicated (i.e. database
connectors, caching, messaging, basic queries). Furthermore, most
of the controllers, business logic and repositories are well-separated.
However, the solution only works in cases when the data does
not change frequently, when most services mainly read and writes
appear rather sporadically. Sharing the data model is easier for
migration, but also represents coupling between the services remaining from the monolith. One service can not change the model
nor the cache format independently of the others since it would
eliminate the performance improvement. A pure MSA would allow
complete independence. However, the synchronization problem
discussed in the first scenario would arise and the system would
become more complex.
Lastly, we conclude that using the message broker is an efficient way of communication between microservice. The publish/subscribe model is very flexible and provides a faster mechanism than HTTP requests with the benefit of the persistent messages.
5
CONCLUSIONS
Migrating from monolith structure to MSA is the latest trend in software design. An efficient design for data communication between
the original monolith and new microservices or among distinct
microservices is very important for improving the performance
of the whole system after migration. In this paper, we proposed
two architectures targeting two common scenarios for data communication between microservices. One was to implement data
synchronization between different databases of distinct microservices or between microservice and monolith by building a data
stream system with technologies such as Kafka and Debezium.
By applying this approach, we can preserve independence for involved modules and maintain the master system’s focus solely on
its business logic without adding extra logic for manipulation of
the microservices’ databases. In the second case study, we proposed
a ’semi microservice’ technique for increasing the database performance by introducing a distributed cache instead of splitting the
data model into multiple bounded contexts.
Both approaches work well in our project. However, they are
far from universally optimal architectures for every scenario. This
paper provides an inspiration to apply our approach for situations
with similar challenges.
In future work, we will continue to examine microservice architecture in both existing and new systems. First, we plan to further
divide the centralized system from our example one. The approach
is to follow the path depicted by this paper. Moreover, we will
consider extension of example two with serverless functions. We
are currently developing a third application that is meant to go
to production, which will be a pure microservice design from the
View publication stats
Antonin Smid, Ruolin Wang, and Tomas Cerny
beginning. This portfolio of production-level software will give us
more context to extend our work.
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
This material is based upon work supported by the ICPC Foundation.
REFERENCES
[1] 2019. Contest Management System. (2019). http://icpc.baylor.edu.
[2] 2019. MyICPC: Second Screen Experience Platform. (2019). http://my.icpc.global.
[3] Apache. 2019. Kafka: a distributed streaming platform. (2019). Retrieved Jun 6,
2019 from https://kafka.apache.org/
[4] Armin Balalaie, Abbas Heydarnoori, and Pooyan Jamshidi. 2015. Migrating to
cloud-native architectures using microservices: an experience report. In European
Conference on Service-Oriented and Cloud Computing. Springer, 201–215.
[5] Armin Balalaie, Abbas Heydarnoori, and Pooyan Jamshidi. 2016. Microservices
architecture enables devops: Migration to a cloud-native architecture. IEEE
Software 33, 3 (2016), 42–52.
[6] Tomas Cerny and Michael J. Donahoo. 2018. Second Screen Engagement of Event
Spectators. Adv. Human-Computer Interaction 2018 (2018), 3845123:1–3845123:20.
[7] Tomas Cerny, Michael J. Donahoo, and Michal Trnka. 2018. Contextual Understanding of Microservice Architecture: Current and Future Directions. SIGAPP
Appl. Comput. Rev. 17, 4 (Jan. 2018), 29–45. https://doi.org/10.1145/3183628.
3183631
[8] Debezium. 2019. Debezium: an open source distributed platform for change data
capture. (2019). Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https://debezium.io/
[9] Paolo Di Francesco, Patricia Lago, and Ivano Malavolta. 2018. Migrating towards microservice architectures: an industrial survey. In 2018 IEEE International
Conference on Software Architecture (ICSA). IEEE, 29–2909.
[10] Nicola Dragoni, Schahram Dustdar, Stephan T Larsen, and Manuel Mazzara.
2017. Microservices: Migration of a mission critical system. arXiv preprint
arXiv:1704.04173 (2017).
[11] ElasticSearch. 2019. ElasticSearch: a distributed, RESTful search and analytics
engine. (2019). Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https://www.elastic.co/products/
elasticsearch
[12] Ken Finnigan. 2019. Enterprise Java Microservices. Manning Publications.
[13] The Linux Foundation. 2019. Kubernetes, Production-Grade Container Orchestration. (2019). Retrieved Jun 10, 2019 from https://kubernetes.io
[14] Andrei Furda, Colin Fidge, Olaf Zimmermann, Wayne Kelly, and Alistair Barros.
2017. Migrating enterprise legacy source code to microservices: on multitenancy,
statefulness, and data consistency. IEEE Software 35, 3 (2017), 63–72.
[15] Jean-Philippe Gouigoux and Dalila Tamzalit. 2017. From monolith to microservices: Lessons learned on an industrial migration to a web oriented architecture.
In 2017 IEEE International Conference on Software Architecture Workshops (ICSAW).
IEEE, 62–65.
[16] S. Ihde. 2019. From a Monolith to Microservices1 REST: The Evolution of
LinkedIn’s ServiceArchitecture. (2019). Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https:
//www.infoq.com/presentations/linkedin-microservices-urn
[17] Docker Inc. 2019. Docker, Enterprise Container Platform. (2019). Retrieved Jun
10, 2019 from https://www.docker.com
[18] Pivotal Software Inc. 2019. Rabitt MQ. (2019). Retrieved Jun 10, 2019 from
https://www.rabbitmq.com/
[19] Holger Knoche and Wilhelm Hasselbring. 2018. Using microservices for legacy
software modernization. IEEE Software 35, 3 (2018), 44–49.
The Biggest ThingAmazon Got Right: The Plat[20] S. Kramer. 2019.
form. (2019). Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https://gigaom.com/2011/10/12/
419-the-biggest-thing-amazon-got-right-the-platform/
[21] Redis Labs. 2019. Redis: an open source in-memory data structure store. (2019).
Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https://redis.io/
[22] Alessandra Levcovitz, Ricardo Terra, and Marco Tulio Valente. 2016. Towards
a technique for extracting microservices from monolithic enterprise systems.
arXiv preprint arXiv:1605.03175 (2016).
[23] Tony Mauro. 2019. Nginx – Adopting Microservices at Netflix:Lessons for Architectural Design. (2019). Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https://www.nginx.com/blog/
microservices-at-netflix-architectural-best-practices/
[24] neo4j. 2019. neo4j: A Graph Platform Reveals and Persists Connections. (2019).
Retrieved Jun 6, 2019 from https://neo4j.com
[25] Zhongshan Ren, Wei Wang, Guoquan Wu, Chushu Gao, Wei Chen, Jun Wei, and
Tao Huang. 2018. Migrating Web Applications from Monolithic Structure to
Microservices Architecture. In Proceedings of the Tenth Asia-Pacific Symposium
on Internetware. ACM, 7.
[26] Red Hat Software. 2019. High Availability Guide. (2019). Retrieved Jun 10, 2019
from http://docs.wildfly.org/12/High_Availability_Guide.html
[27] Davide Taibi, Valentina Lenarduzzi, and Claus Pahl. 2017. Processes, motivations,
and issues for migrating to microservices architectures: An empirical investigation. IEEE Cloud Computing 4, 5 (2017), 22–32.