Monolithic Infrastructure Migration: Unlock Agility & Scale

Monolithic applications have long been a concern for many organisations. One primary challenge with monolithic infrastructure is its difficulty in scaling and maintenance. Due to its tightly coupled components, scaling individual parts becomes complex. This can cause performance bottlenecks and slower response times. However, with advancements in cloud computing, businesses now shift from monolithic systems. They adopt modern solutions like microservices and serverless technologies. These solutions support innovation and scalability while remaining cost-effective.

Weighing the benefits and drawbacks of monolithic infrastructure

Monolithic infrastructure comprises all necessary application components, including servers, databases, and user interfaces. Historically, this approach was popular for its straightforward development process. However, monolithic infrastructure comes with challenges. These include long lead times, fear of failed changes, and issues with agile methodologies. Additionally, integrating monolithic systems with cloud technologies can be difficult. Their tightly coupled design limits flexibility and makes updates challenging.

Deploying new features or updates can increase the risk of downtime. This adds complexity to managing such systems. Moreover, integration with external services is often limited. This restricts adaptability and makes long-term innovation harder.

Solutions for tackling monolithic infrastructure issues

One effective strategy is the “strangler pattern.” This approach has gained traction with cloud advancements. It involves analysing an application to categorise requests into defined domains. This understanding is the first step in breaking down a monolith. Implementing real-time API monitoring helps gradually reroute requests. This allows for a phased transition from monolithic systems to microservices.

Strong migration with re-hosting techniques

A strong migration strategy may involve re-hosting a monolithic application on EC2 instances. This includes migrating the database to RDS and adding an API Gateway for redirecting client requests. Although re-hosting is temporary, it provides quick results. This is useful for companies with tight deadlines, such as data centre exits. Balancing between on-premises and cloud environments is also an option. This allows initial migration steps without fully transitioning to cloud-native architecture.

Transitioning to microservices architecture

Re-architecting the application into microservices is another practical approach. This involves dividing the monolith into smaller services that can be developed and scaled independently. For example, deploying microservices on Kubernetes adds flexibility. Additionally, updating individual services is more efficient than updating the entire system.

This process is iterative. Services are deployed one by one, with API requests rewritten to fit the new architecture. Eventually, all traffic is directed to microservices, allowing the monolith to phase out. Testing each part of the code and using monitoring tools like CloudWatch is essential. This ensures smooth transitions and prevents disruptions.

Completing the monolith phase-out

The final step requires complete integration of monitoring tools and traffic rerouting. Once requests are handled by microservices, the monolith can be decommissioned. CloudWatch and similar tools play a key role in this phase. They track user performance and detect any issues in real time.

Considering serverless architecture as an alternative

Serverless architecture is another viable option. This approach uses functions as microservices, removing the need to manage infrastructure. Teams familiar with certain programming languages might prefer containers. However, serverless systems reduce the development workload. They stay active as long as the cloud region is available.

Evaluating the costs of re-architecting

Re-architecting often requires significant initial investment. This is true, especially when using the strangler pattern, which involves detailed code rewriting and analysis. However, cloud consumption costs for re-architected applications are usually lower. Serverless architecture ensures applications stay accessible, reducing downtime risks.

Re-architecting vs re-hosting: Cost comparison

In a recent project, Devoteam worked on a mid-sized, complex application. Two quotes were provided for re-hosting and re-architecting. Re-hosting had a lower initial cost but higher ongoing expenses. Re-architecting involved more investment upfront but lower long-term costs. For example, re-hosting costs were estimated at £135,000, while re-architecting was £121,000. Results can vary, but returns on investment usually take three to four years.

Devoteam’s approach to monolithic infrastructure migration

At Devoteam, we offer a Migrate to Modernise service. This service guides customers through the entire migration process. We start with an assessment and discovery workshop. This report aligns with the customer’s cloud strategy. It identifies whether re-architecting or re-hosting suits their needs. Our approach ensures that customers receive a migration plan tailored to their goals. For example, we presented a PoC for a customer, and within months, their application will go live.