MétaCan
Menu
Back to cohort
Record W3093531719 · doi:10.1109/seaa51224.2020.00045

From a Monolithic Big Data System to a Microservices Event-Driven Architecture

2020· article· en· W3093531719 on OpenAlexaff
Rodrigo Laigner, Marcos Kalinowski, Pedro C. Diniz, Leonardo Barros, Carlos Cassino, Melissa Lemos, Darlan Arruda, Sérgio Lifschitz, Yongluan Zhou

Bibliographic record

Venuenot available
Typearticle
Languageen
FieldComputer Science
TopicSoftware System Performance and Reliability
Canadian institutionsWestern University
Fundersnot available
KeywordsMicroservicesComputer scienceEvent (particle physics)ArchitectureBig dataComputer architectureOperating systemHistoryCloud computingArchaeology

Abstract

fetched live from OpenAlex

Context: Data-intensive systems, a.k.a. big data systems (BDS), are software systems that handle a large volume of data in the presence of performance quality attributes, such as scalability and availability. Before the advent of big data management systems (e.g. Cassandra) and frameworks (e.g. Spark), organizations had to cope with large data volumes with custom-tailored solutions. In particular, a decade ago, Tecgraf/PUC-Rio developed a system to monitor truck fleet in real-time and proactively detect events from the positioning data received. Over the years, the system evolved into a complex and large obsolescent code base involving a costly maintenance process. Goal: We report our experience on replacing a legacy BDS with a microservice-based event-driven system. Method: We applied action research, investigating the reasons that motivate the adoption of a microservice-based event-driven architecture, intervening to define the new architecture, and documenting the challenges and lessons learned. Results: We perceived that the resulting architecture enabled easier maintenance and faultisolation. However, the myriad of technologies and the complex data flow were perceived as drawbacks. Based on the challenges faced, we highlight opportunities to improve the design of big data reactive systems. Conclusions: We believe that our experience provides helpful takeaways for practitioners modernizing systems with data-intensive requirements.

Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.

How this classification was reachedexpand

Full frame machine prediction

Teacher imitation

Not calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.

metaresearch head score (Codex)0.004
metaresearch head score (Gemma)0.004
Version: metacan-v3-hybrid-931329e0061cValidation status: machine_predicted_unvalidated
Candidate categoriesnone
Consensus categoriesnone
DomainCandidate signal: none · Consensus signal: none
Study designCandidate signal: Not applicable · Consensus signal: none
GenreCandidate signal: Empirical · Consensus signal: none
Teacher disagreement score0.004
Threshold uncertainty score0.020

Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)

CategoryCodexGemma
Metaresearch0.0040.004
Meta-epidemiology (narrow)0.0000.000
Meta-epidemiology (broad)0.0000.000
Bibliometrics0.0000.001
Science and technology studies0.0010.002
Scholarly communication0.0030.004
Open science0.0020.002
Research integrity0.0010.003
Insufficient payload (model declined to judge)0.0020.001

Machine scores (provisional)

The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.

Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.

Opus teacher head0.043
GPT teacher head0.259
Teacher spread0.216 · how far apart the two teachers sit on this one work
Validation statusscore_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from it

Classification

machine, unvalidated

Machine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.

The models applied no category: nothing in the taxonomy fit this work.
Study designNot applicable
Domainnot available
GenreEmpirical

How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".

Quick stats

Citations41
Published2020
Admission routes1
Has abstractyes

Explore more

Same topicSoftware System Performance and ReliabilityFrench-language works237,207