The Hacker's Notes

Source: https://thenewstack.io/from-monolith-to-microservices/  X-axis scaling Running multiple copies of an application behind a load balancer. Each copy can handle 1/N of the load. Where N is the number of running copies. This is simple and commonly used approach to scale. Cons * Each copy accesses all the data, cache size will be higher. * Doesn't solve increasing development and application complexity. Y-axis scaling Splitting the application into multiple, different services. Then more infra resources can be added to only the micro-service which is bottleneck in the architecture. Here cached can be utilized efficiently, only where it is needed. Z-axis scaling Each server runs same copy similar to X-axis scaling. The big difference is that each server. Some component of the system is responsible for routing each request to the appropriate server. This is commonly used to scale databases where data is partitioned(a.k.a sharded) Pros * Each server

Vert.x is an event driven and non blocking “Platform” where we can develop our application on. Vert.x is like Node.JS, but the biggest difference is that it runs on the JVM, it’s scalable, concurrent, non-blocking, distributed and polyglot. Following four key properties of Vert.x helps us in developing reactive applications. Async and non-blocking model Elastic Resilient Responsive Async and non-blocking model None of the Vert.x APIs block the calling thread(with few exceptions). If the result can be found quickly, It will be returned; Otherwise it will be handled by a handler to receive event sometime later. vertx      .createHttpServer()      .requestHandler(r -> {            r.response()            .end("<h1>Hello from my first " + "Vert.x 3 application</h1>"); })            .listen(8080, result -> {                 if (result.succeeded()) {                      fut.complete();                 } else {