Serverless vs Microservices - Which Architecture Fits Your Business Needs?

1. Back-End as a Service(BaaS)

This serverless approach provides a pre-built back-end with ready-to-use features, allowing the developers to work solely on building the front end. Some of the well-known BaaS platforms include - Firebase and AWS Amplify.

2. Function as a Service(FaaS)

This approach allows developers to code and deploy modular functions that will run in response to predefined triggers and events, which can be anything from an HTTP request to a time-based trigger. Some examples of FaaS include - AWS Lambda, Microsoft Azure, and Google Cloud.

(a) Rapid Development

As the back end is managed by a third party, the developers can build new features & services and deploy them without worrying about the logical constraints of the application.

(b) Automated Scalability

In serverless computing, the capacity of your server is allocated by your service provider. Meaning your service provider can toggle the server strength dynamically to change between higher & lower capacities based on your application’s demand.

(c) Cost-effective

Unlike other services where you have to pay for the server capacity regardless of whether it is being used or not, in a serverless setup, you have to pay only for the number of instances that your services were used.

(d) Vendor-Managed Infrastructure

With a serverless application, you don’t own any actual piece of infrastructure, meaning the task of maintaining and keeping the servers up-to-date is not your responsibility. The cloud service providers will handle all of that for you.

(1) Stateless Microservices

In this approach, the microservices do not store any information from the users. Every request is processed from the start without the influence of any prior data.

(2) Stateful Microservices

The opposite of the previous approach, here the microservice architecture stores data from each request to help the users complete repetitive requests efficiently. 

(a) Modular Approach for Scalability

Since the modular architecture allows different components of the applications to work independently, you can scale them individually depending on the business requirements. Previously, this wasn’t an option, you either had to scale the entire application or compromise on upgrading that specific module.

(b) Decentralized and Enhanced Security

Every component operates using a personal database, meaning even if a specific component is exposed to a security breach, the remaining components will not be affected. Additionally, depending on the sensitivity of data stored in each component you can prioritize the security of some modules more than others.

(c) Fault Isolation and Reliability

In case any one of the microservices in your application faces an issue, it will not propagate across the other components of the solution. Because each module operates using its own resources making them self-sustainable, and not dependent on the support of other microservices like the monolithic architecture.

(d) Diversification Of Technology

Instead of building the entire solution using a single technology stack, you can diversify them based on the best options available in the market for each microservice. Let’s try to understand this with an example - consider a certain application needs to process requests with low latency, here Go-Lang is the developer's favorite. Parallelly if a different microservice in the same app needs to perform a data-intensive task, Python outshines Go-Lang. With microservices, you can use different technologies in separate modules which wasn’t possible in a monolithic app.

(1) Scalability Methods

Although both architectures offer enhanced scalability in their own ways, the use cases for their enhancement versions are completely different. Let’s take a look -

1. Serverless Architecture:  In this case, new updates are pushed in the form of functions and the cloud service provider has to scale the service dynamically according to the increase in the footfall of users on your application. You as the application owner do not have control over the individual parts of the application you wish to scale over here.
2. Microservices Architecture: Here, the scaling is independent, meaning you can select exactly what aspects of your application to scale and which ones not to. However, since there is no third party managing this model, developers have to manually scale the necessary components.

So in this scenario, we can conclude that both serverless architecture and microservices have their own scalability benefits and the better choice completely depends on your business requirements.

(2) Cost Of Development

Let’s look at the resources and funds required for developing each of the architectures. The main differentiating factor here is that in one of the architectures, we actually own a piece of architecture -

1. Serverless Architecture: Here you do not own any on-site equipment meaning the initial development and maintenance costs are eliminated. The service providers typically share the servers across multiple clients which allows them to cut costs and provide serverless platforms at lower costs.
2. Microservices Architecture: In this case, the development and maintenance of the software is your responsibility. This means you have to outsource development teams for building these solutions, but in return, you get absolute control over the in-depth operations of your solution.

Because the point of discussion here is solely the resources being spent on the development of the software, this point goes to a serverless architecture.

(3) Operating Time Constraints

While one of the architectures shares its server with other applications, the other has its own server. Here’s how time allocation differs for the usability of both architectures -

1. Serverless Architecture:  As the vendors provide the same server to multiple clients they limit the runtime and RAM usage for each function so that the resources can be evenly shared and the server is not overloaded in any scenario. This means serverless apps can be used only for quick services, say 10-minute sessions or less.
2. Microservices Architecture: As you own the server there are no time or memory constraints on your users while using the services. This makes microservices an ideal choice for services that are complicated and time-consuming.

As microservices do not limit their users with a timer and allow users to perform complicated and time-consuming tasks that manipulate large amounts of data, this point goes to microservices architectures.

(4) Infrastructure Management

Developing and maintaining the software’s infrastructure is one of the most excruciating tasks if not done right. Although hiring software development professionals like BinaryFolks mitigates this issue completely, here’s how the architectures under discussion are responsible for their architectures:

1. Serverless Architecture: Here, the developers are not responsible for developing, maintaining, or allocating the infrastructure to the users, their only responsibility is to code functionalities that align with the business goals.
2. Microservices Architecture: For this architecture, the developers are responsible for developing and maintaining all of the microservices operating. This can be a draining task as you have to appoint experts for individual technologies being used.

Even though the team that developed your microservices in the first place can easily take care of all the mentioned tasks, just the fact that in the case of serverless architecture the application owner can be completely unbothered about the development aspect. This point goes to a serverless architecture.

(5) Technological Versatility

The final comparison factor is gonna be the technical versatility that each architecture allows while developing solutions around them. 

1. Serverless Architecture: As the cloud service vendor shares the same server with multiple businesses it does include all of the mainstream technologies that are currently available in the market.
2. Microservices Architecture: These services can be built using different tech stacks for each of the available application modules, providing  more flexibility and allowing developers to showcase their technological prowess completely.

Serverless architecture supports a respectable range of technologies, however, it lacks the level of flexibility that microservices provide. Making microservices dominant in this aspect.

(a) Serverless Architecture Use Cases

the primary applications of this architecture are aligned towards providing businesses with an optimal workflow that shifts more towards automation than manual involvement:

1. Event Based Operations: From sending automated emails, to updating complicated databases serverless architectures can take care of all the event based operations within seconds.
2. Asynchronous Media Processing: Whether you need to scale up or scale down a piece of media, or change its format completely serverless applications can handle these tasks seamlessly.
3. Building RESTful APIs: Serverless applications can be equipped with a plethora of APIs each with their own functionalities that can be simply triggered using an HTTP request.

(b) Microservices Architecture Use Cases

this architecture does wonders when it comes to handling complicated data sets with an ocean of content with minimal to no delay:

1. Big Data Processing: If your business needs to implement solutions that demand high computational capabilities and an efficient data handling capabilities then, applications built using microservices architecture should be your go to choice.
2. Upgrading Legacy Infrastructure: In case your business is still stuck in the era of monolithic architecture based softwares, it is high time you shift to microservices to provide your business independence in terms of scalability, resource distribution and so much more.
3. Real Time Data Processing: People hate waiting these days and it would be a shame if your business lost even a single potential customer due to any forms of delay, this is where microservices come in clutch.