Passion * Technology * Ruthless Competence

Wednesday, April 21, 2004

The Endangered Middle-Tier, Part 2

Among the responses to my endangered middle-tier post was this one by Ed Draper, architect evangelist for MSFT. While Ed makes some interesting points, on the whole his argument doesn't hold much water.

First off, his point about Moore's law is accurate, yet irrelevant. While Moore's law does relate to CPU speed, I was using it as an example of the rate that overall computing power improves. Storage capacity and network speed improve along a similar trajectory. 64-bit machines are at the early stages of becoming commonplace. And while it's true that scalability doesn't equal performance, having better performing hardware can significantly improve scalability.

(Side note - if we're going to be truly picky, Moore's law actually refers to rate of improvement of the number of transistors per IC, which only roughly equates to performance. Intel's Centrino technology is all about using those increasing numbers of transistors for other things like wireless networking and battery management.)

Ed spends quite a bit of time covering very low level computing concepts such as threads, locks, instruction cache, registers and the stack. I'm not sure why he does this. It almost feels like he only read the first part of my post, stopping right before he got to the part where I wrote: "Of course, it will be a long long time before Moore's law can provide a single machine to run a BIG enterprise app". In other words, I don't expect to run my ERP, SCM, CRM or other BFD enterprise-scale app on one machine!

Ed has missed a basic point of my post that I didn't spell out as I thought it was obvious: the independent services that make up a BIG enterprise class app can all run on different machines. I'm guessing he missed that point by the way he ended his post: 

"Yes, distributed computing is a good thing."

As Ted points out, it's not just a good thing, "distributed computing is a necessary thing." And a system of 100's or 1000's of independent services - which is what I'm describing - is significantly more distributable than the multi-tier monolithic applications we build today.

Of course, it is guaranteed that a small percentage of services will continue to need to use scale out techniques to reach their scalability requirements. For example, it will be a very very long time (if ever) before a single piece of hardware could handle the order processing load Amazon.com generates a week before Christmas or the tax return filing load at the IRS on April 15th. This problem isn't unique to application design. To draw a parallel to the database design world, there are a small percentage of tables that benefit from using filegroups to isolate them on separate drives from the rest of the database. It happens - but it doesn't always happen. It doesn't even usually happen. I like Josh's comment that "the vast majority of people who think they have workloads which require partition for scale are actually indulging in delusions of grandeur."

The point I was making is that computers are going to continue getting faster and service-oriented systems are likely to consist of boatloads of independent services with only modest scalability requirements. The combination of these two forces drastically reduces the number of scenarios where you need to use multi-tier scale out techniques to achieve the scalability requirements. If you don't need a multi-tier deployment, then there is a huge performance and scalability benefit to running the service logic in the database process. If you don't need to scale-out to achieve your requirement, why would you take the performance and scalability hit to run your code outside the database?

It's pointless to argue that computer aren't getting faster or that running the code in process with the database doesn't perform better. Ed (and Ted and Josh and everyone else reading this), I'd love to hear you opinions on the following:

  • Will a service-oriented approach likely result in of boatloads of independent services where today we have one BIG app?
  • If yes, will the vast majority of these boatloads of independent services have modest enough scalability requirements to run on a single piece of hardware in the near future?
Posted By at 11:49 PM Pacific Daylight Time
Change Congress
Recent Bookmarks
Tags .NET Framework (2) __clrtype__ (9) ADO.NET (5) Agile (7) AJAX (3) Architecture (288) Guidance (6) Interop (2) Modelling (61) Patterns (7) Process (4) SOA (94) Web Services (5) ASP.NET (25) Async Messaging (2) Azure (1) Battlestar Galactica (3) BI (2) BizTalk (4) Blogging (117) dasBlog (11) Podcasting (4) BPM (1) C# (11) C++ (4) Capitals (5) CardSpace (3) CLR (2) CodePlex (1) College Football (10) Comedy Central (1) Community (81) Concurrency (6) Consumer Electronics (1) Database (13) Debugger (23) Dependency Injection (2) Development (121) C Plus Plus (1) Embedded (5) Lanugages (41) Media (2) P2P (11) Rotor (1) SharePoint (6) SOP (3) DIY (1) DLR (25) Domain Specific Languages (15) Durable Messaging (5) Dynamic Languages (11) Dynamic Silverlight (1) Education (3) Enterprise 2.0 (1) Entertainment (14) ETech (15) F# (51) Functional Programming (17) Game Development (2) Guidance Automation (3) Hardware (8) HawkCodeBox (1) HawkEye (3) Health (1) Hockey (31) Home Electronics (1) Home Network (5) Hosting API (1) Humor (5) IASA (1) Idempotence (3) infrastructure (5) Instrumentation (4) Integration (2) IronPython (112) IronRuby (16) Java (2) Job (3) Kodu (1) LangNET (2) Lightweight Debugger (5) LINQ (23) Live Framework (3) Live Mesh (2) Lost (1) Master Data Management (1) Media 2.0 (6) Microsoft (31) MIX06 (2) Mobile Phone (1) Monads (5) Morning Coffee (172) Object Oriented (4) Office (5) Open Source (8) Open Space (2) Operations (3) Other (135) Art (1) Books (1) Family (33) Games (18) General Geekery (27) Home Theater (1) Movies (23) Music (20) Politics (3) Society (1) Sports (37) Working at MSFT (19) Parallel Programming (3) Parsing Expression Grammar (16) patterns & practices (2) PDC08 (5) Politics (48) Polyglot (3) PowerPoint (2) PowerShell (39) Presentation (7) Projects (1) HawkWiki (1) Pygments (5) Python (6) Quote of the Day (4) Refactoring (1) Research (2) REST (18) Reuse (5) Robotics (2) Rock Band (4) Rome (5) Ruby (23) Ruby on Rails (1) Sci-Fi (2) Scripting (4) Security (3) Service Broker (14) SharePoint (2) Silverlight (20) Social Software (1) Software + Services (2) Software Design (2) Software Engineering (1) Software Factories (11) Software Industry (1) Space Elevator (1) Spark (1) SQL Server (2) Stephen Colbert (1) TechEd (7) TechEd06 (1) TechRec League (1) Television (6) Travel (7) Unified Client (1) Unit Testing (4) USC (1) UX (1) Virtual PC (2) Visual Basic (2) Visual Studio (20) Volta (2) Washington Capitals (37) WCF (31) Web 2.0 (67) Web Services (7) WF (21) Windows (3) Windows Live (29) Windows Live Writer (3) WPF (8) Xbox (1) Xbox 360 (54) XML (11) XNA (15) Zune (4)
Disclaimer: The information in this weblog is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights. This weblog does not represent the thoughts, intentions, plans or strategies of my employer. It is solely my opinion. Inappropriate comments will be deleted at the authors discretion.