|
| 1 | +# Azure Architecture Styles Reference |
| 2 | + |
| 3 | +## Comparison Table |
| 4 | + |
| 5 | +| Style | Dependency Management | Domain Type | |
| 6 | +|---|---|---| |
| 7 | +| N-tier | Horizontal tiers divided by subnet | Traditional business, low update frequency | |
| 8 | +| Web-Queue-Worker | Front/back-end decoupled by async messaging | Simple domain, resource-intensive tasks | |
| 9 | +| Microservices | Vertically decomposed services via APIs | Complex domain, frequent updates | |
| 10 | +| Event-driven | Producer/consumer, independent views | IoT, real-time systems | |
| 11 | +| Big data | Divide into small chunks, parallel processing | Batch/real-time data analysis, ML | |
| 12 | +| Big compute | Data allocation to thousands of cores | Compute-intensive (simulation) | |
| 13 | + |
| 14 | +--- |
| 15 | + |
| 16 | +## 1. N-tier |
| 17 | + |
| 18 | +Traditional architecture that divides an application into logical layers and physical tiers. Each layer has a specific responsibility and communicates only with the layer directly below it. |
| 19 | + |
| 20 | +### Logical Diagram |
| 21 | + |
| 22 | +``` |
| 23 | +┌──────────────────────────────────┐ |
| 24 | +│ Presentation Tier │ ← Web / UI |
| 25 | +│ (Subnet A) │ |
| 26 | +├──────────────────────────────────┤ |
| 27 | +│ Business Logic Tier │ ← Rules / Workflows |
| 28 | +│ (Subnet B) │ |
| 29 | +├──────────────────────────────────┤ |
| 30 | +│ Data Access Tier │ ← Database / Storage |
| 31 | +│ (Subnet C) │ |
| 32 | +└──────────────────────────────────┘ |
| 33 | +``` |
| 34 | + |
| 35 | +### Benefits |
| 36 | + |
| 37 | +- Familiar pattern for most development teams |
| 38 | +- Natural mapping for migrating existing layered applications to Azure |
| 39 | +- Clear separation of concerns between tiers |
| 40 | + |
| 41 | +### Challenges |
| 42 | + |
| 43 | +- Horizontal layering makes cross-cutting changes difficult — a single feature may touch every tier |
| 44 | +- Limits agility and release velocity as tiers are tightly coupled vertically |
| 45 | + |
| 46 | +### Best Practices |
| 47 | + |
| 48 | +- Use VNet subnets to isolate tiers and control traffic flow with NSGs |
| 49 | +- Keep each tier stateless where possible to enable horizontal scaling |
| 50 | +- Use managed services (App Service, Azure SQL) to reduce operational overhead |
| 51 | + |
| 52 | +### Dependency Management |
| 53 | + |
| 54 | +Horizontal tiers divided by subnet. Each tier depends only on the tier directly below it, enforced through network segmentation. |
| 55 | + |
| 56 | +### Recommended Azure Services |
| 57 | + |
| 58 | +- Azure App Service |
| 59 | +- Azure SQL Database |
| 60 | +- Azure Virtual Machines |
| 61 | +- Azure Virtual Network (subnets) |
| 62 | + |
| 63 | +--- |
| 64 | + |
| 65 | +## 2. Web-Queue-Worker |
| 66 | + |
| 67 | +A web front end handles HTTP requests while a worker process performs resource-intensive or long-running tasks. The two components communicate through an asynchronous message queue. |
| 68 | + |
| 69 | +### Logical Diagram |
| 70 | + |
| 71 | +``` |
| 72 | + ┌───────────┐ |
| 73 | + HTTP ─────────►│ Web │ |
| 74 | + Requests │ Front End │ |
| 75 | + └─────┬─────┘ |
| 76 | + │ |
| 77 | + ▼ |
| 78 | + ┌──────────────┐ |
| 79 | + │ Message │ |
| 80 | + │ Queue │ |
| 81 | + └──────┬───────┘ |
| 82 | + │ |
| 83 | + ▼ |
| 84 | + ┌───────────┐ |
| 85 | + │ Worker │ |
| 86 | + │ Process │ |
| 87 | + └─────┬─────┘ |
| 88 | + │ |
| 89 | + ▼ |
| 90 | + ┌───────────┐ |
| 91 | + │ Database │ |
| 92 | + └───────────┘ |
| 93 | +``` |
| 94 | + |
| 95 | +### Benefits |
| 96 | + |
| 97 | +- Easy to understand and deploy, especially with managed compute services |
| 98 | +- Clean separation between interactive and background workloads |
| 99 | +- Each component can scale independently |
| 100 | + |
| 101 | +### Challenges |
| 102 | + |
| 103 | +- Without careful design, the front end and worker can become monolithic components that are hard to maintain and update |
| 104 | +- Hidden dependencies may emerge if front end and worker share data schemas or storage |
| 105 | + |
| 106 | +### Best Practices |
| 107 | + |
| 108 | +- Keep the web front end thin — delegate heavy processing to the worker |
| 109 | +- Use durable message queues to ensure work is not lost on failure |
| 110 | +- Design idempotent worker operations to handle message retries safely |
| 111 | + |
| 112 | +### Dependency Management |
| 113 | + |
| 114 | +Front-end and back-end jobs are decoupled by asynchronous messaging. The web tier never calls the worker directly; all communication flows through the queue. |
| 115 | + |
| 116 | +### Recommended Azure Services |
| 117 | + |
| 118 | +- Azure App Service |
| 119 | +- Azure Functions |
| 120 | +- Azure Queue Storage |
| 121 | +- Azure Service Bus |
| 122 | + |
| 123 | +--- |
| 124 | + |
| 125 | +## 3. Microservices |
| 126 | + |
| 127 | +A collection of small, autonomous services where each service implements a single business capability. Each service owns its bounded context and data, and communicates with other services via well-defined APIs. |
| 128 | + |
| 129 | +### Logical Diagram |
| 130 | + |
| 131 | +``` |
| 132 | +┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ ┌──────────┐ |
| 133 | +│ Service │ │ Service │ │ Service │ |
| 134 | +│ A │ │ B │ │ C │ |
| 135 | +│ ┌──────┐ │ │ ┌──────┐ │ │ ┌──────┐ │ |
| 136 | +│ │ Data │ │ │ │ Data │ │ │ │ Data │ │ |
| 137 | +│ └──────┘ │ │ └──────┘ │ │ └──────┘ │ |
| 138 | +└────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘ └────┬─────┘ |
| 139 | + │ │ │ |
| 140 | + └──────┬───────┘──────────────┘ |
| 141 | + ▼ |
| 142 | + ┌──────────────┐ |
| 143 | + │ API Gateway │ |
| 144 | + └──────┬───────┘ |
| 145 | + │ |
| 146 | + Clients |
| 147 | +``` |
| 148 | + |
| 149 | +### Benefits |
| 150 | + |
| 151 | +- Autonomous teams can develop, deploy, and scale services independently |
| 152 | +- Enables frequent updates and higher release velocity |
| 153 | +- Technology diversity — each service can use the stack best suited to its task |
| 154 | + |
| 155 | +### Challenges |
| 156 | + |
| 157 | +- Service discovery and inter-service communication add complexity |
| 158 | +- Data consistency across services requires patterns like Saga or eventual consistency |
| 159 | +- Distributed system management (monitoring, debugging, tracing) is inherently harder |
| 160 | + |
| 161 | +### Best Practices |
| 162 | + |
| 163 | +- Define clear bounded contexts — avoid sharing databases between services |
| 164 | +- Use an API gateway for cross-cutting concerns (auth, rate limiting, routing) |
| 165 | +- Implement health checks, circuit breakers, and distributed tracing from day one |
| 166 | + |
| 167 | +### Dependency Management |
| 168 | + |
| 169 | +Vertically decomposed services calling each other via APIs. Each service is independently deployable with its own data store, minimizing coupling. |
| 170 | + |
| 171 | +### Recommended Azure Services |
| 172 | + |
| 173 | +- Azure Kubernetes Service (AKS) |
| 174 | +- Azure Container Apps |
| 175 | +- Azure API Management |
| 176 | +- Azure Service Bus |
| 177 | +- Azure Cosmos DB |
| 178 | + |
| 179 | +--- |
| 180 | + |
| 181 | +## 4. Event-driven |
| 182 | + |
| 183 | +A publish-subscribe architecture where event producers emit events and event consumers react to them. Producers and consumers are fully decoupled, communicating only through event channels or brokers. |
| 184 | + |
| 185 | +### Logical Diagram |
| 186 | + |
| 187 | +``` |
| 188 | +┌──────────┐ ┌──────────────────┐ ┌──────────┐ |
| 189 | +│ Producer │────►│ │────►│ Consumer │ |
| 190 | +│ A │ │ Event Broker │ │ A │ |
| 191 | +└──────────┘ │ / Channel │ └──────────┘ |
| 192 | + │ │ |
| 193 | +┌──────────┐ │ ┌────────────┐ │ ┌──────────┐ |
| 194 | +│ Producer │────►│ │ Pub/Sub │ │────►│ Consumer │ |
| 195 | +│ B │ │ │ or Stream │ │ │ B │ |
| 196 | +└──────────┘ │ └────────────┘ │ └──────────┘ |
| 197 | + └──────────────────┘ |
| 198 | +``` |
| 199 | + |
| 200 | +**Two models:** Pub/Sub (events delivered to subscribers) and Event Streaming (events written to an ordered log for consumers to read). |
| 201 | + |
| 202 | +**Consumer variations:** Simple event processing, basic correlation, complex event processing, event stream processing. |
| 203 | + |
| 204 | +### Benefits |
| 205 | + |
| 206 | +- Producers and consumers are fully decoupled — they can evolve independently |
| 207 | +- Highly scalable — add consumers without affecting producers |
| 208 | +- Responsive and well-suited to real-time processing pipelines |
| 209 | + |
| 210 | +### Challenges |
| 211 | + |
| 212 | +- Guaranteed delivery requires careful broker configuration and dead-letter handling |
| 213 | +- Event ordering can be difficult to maintain across partitions |
| 214 | +- Eventual consistency — consumers may see stale data temporarily |
| 215 | +- Error handling and poison message management add operational complexity |
| 216 | + |
| 217 | +### Best Practices |
| 218 | + |
| 219 | +- Design events as immutable facts with clear schemas |
| 220 | +- Use dead-letter queues for events that fail processing |
| 221 | +- Implement idempotent consumers to handle duplicate delivery safely |
| 222 | + |
| 223 | +### Dependency Management |
| 224 | + |
| 225 | +Producer/consumer model with independent views per subsystem. Producers have no knowledge of consumers; each subsystem maintains its own projection of the event stream. |
| 226 | + |
| 227 | +### Recommended Azure Services |
| 228 | + |
| 229 | +- Azure Event Grid |
| 230 | +- Azure Event Hubs |
| 231 | +- Azure Functions |
| 232 | +- Azure Service Bus |
| 233 | +- Azure Stream Analytics |
| 234 | + |
| 235 | +--- |
| 236 | + |
| 237 | +## 5. Big Data |
| 238 | + |
| 239 | +Architecture designed to handle ingestion, processing, and analysis of data that is too large or complex for traditional database systems. |
| 240 | + |
| 241 | +### Logical Diagram |
| 242 | + |
| 243 | +``` |
| 244 | +┌─────────────┐ ┌──────────────────────────────────┐ |
| 245 | +│ Data Sources│───►│ Data Storage │ |
| 246 | +│ (logs, IoT, │ │ (Data Lake) │ |
| 247 | +│ files) │ └──┬──────────────┬─────────────────┘ |
| 248 | +└─────────────┘ │ │ |
| 249 | + ▼ ▼ |
| 250 | + ┌──────────────┐ ┌──────────────┐ |
| 251 | + │ Batch │ │ Real-time │ |
| 252 | + │ Processing │ │ Processing │ |
| 253 | + └──────┬───────┘ └──────┬───────┘ |
| 254 | + │ │ |
| 255 | + ▼ ▼ |
| 256 | + ┌───────────────────────────────┐ |
| 257 | + │ Analytical Data Store │ |
| 258 | + └──────────────┬────────────────┘ |
| 259 | + │ |
| 260 | + ┌──────────────▼────────────────┐ |
| 261 | + │ Analysis & Reporting │ |
| 262 | + │ (Dashboards, ML Models) │ |
| 263 | + └───────────────────────────────┘ |
| 264 | +
|
| 265 | + Orchestration manages the full pipeline |
| 266 | +``` |
| 267 | + |
| 268 | +**Components:** Data sources → Data storage (data lake) → Batch processing → Real-time processing → Analytical data store → Analysis and reporting → Orchestration. |
| 269 | + |
| 270 | +### Benefits |
| 271 | + |
| 272 | +- Process massive datasets that exceed traditional database capacity |
| 273 | +- Support both batch and real-time analytics in a single architecture |
| 274 | +- Enable predictive analytics and machine learning at scale |
| 275 | + |
| 276 | +### Challenges |
| 277 | + |
| 278 | +- Complexity of coordinating batch and real-time processing paths |
| 279 | +- Data quality and governance across a data lake require disciplined schema management |
| 280 | +- Cost management — large-scale storage and compute can grow unpredictably |
| 281 | + |
| 282 | +### Best Practices |
| 283 | + |
| 284 | +- Use parallelism for both batch and real-time processing |
| 285 | +- Partition data to enable parallel reads and writes |
| 286 | +- Apply schema-on-read semantics to keep ingestion flexible |
| 287 | +- Process data in batches on arrival rather than waiting for scheduled windows |
| 288 | +- Balance usage costs against time-to-insight requirements |
| 289 | + |
| 290 | +### Dependency Management |
| 291 | + |
| 292 | +Divide huge datasets into small chunks for parallel processing. Each chunk can be processed independently, with an orchestration layer coordinating the overall pipeline. |
| 293 | + |
| 294 | +### Recommended Azure Services |
| 295 | + |
| 296 | +- Microsoft Fabric |
| 297 | +- Azure Data Lake Storage |
| 298 | +- Azure Event Hubs |
| 299 | +- Azure SQL Database |
| 300 | +- Azure Cosmos DB |
| 301 | +- Power BI |
| 302 | + |
| 303 | +--- |
| 304 | + |
| 305 | +## 6. Big Compute |
| 306 | + |
| 307 | +Architecture for large-scale workloads that require hundreds or thousands of cores running in parallel. Tasks can be independent (embarrassingly parallel) or tightly coupled requiring inter-node communication. |
| 308 | + |
| 309 | +### Logical Diagram |
| 310 | + |
| 311 | +``` |
| 312 | +┌─────────────────────────────────────────────┐ |
| 313 | +│ Job Scheduler │ |
| 314 | +│ (submit, monitor, manage) │ |
| 315 | +└─────────────────┬───────────────────────────┘ |
| 316 | + │ |
| 317 | + ┌─────────────┼─────────────┐ |
| 318 | + ▼ ▼ ▼ |
| 319 | +┌────────┐ ┌────────┐ ┌────────────────┐ |
| 320 | +│ Core │ │ Core │ │ Core │ |
| 321 | +│ Pool 1 │ │ Pool 2 │ │ Pool N │ |
| 322 | +│(100s) │ │(100s) │ │(1000s of cores)│ |
| 323 | +└───┬────┘ └───┬────┘ └───┬────────────┘ |
| 324 | + │ │ │ |
| 325 | + └─────────┬─┘────────────┘ |
| 326 | + ▼ |
| 327 | + ┌──────────────┐ |
| 328 | + │ Results │ |
| 329 | + │ Storage │ |
| 330 | + └──────────────┘ |
| 331 | +``` |
| 332 | + |
| 333 | +**Use cases:** Simulations, financial risk modeling, oil exploration, drug design, image rendering. |
| 334 | + |
| 335 | +### Benefits |
| 336 | + |
| 337 | +- High performance through massive parallel processing |
| 338 | +- Access to specialized hardware (GPU, FPGA, InfiniBand) for compute-intensive workloads |
| 339 | +- Scales to thousands of cores for embarrassingly parallel problems |
| 340 | + |
| 341 | +### Challenges |
| 342 | + |
| 343 | +- Managing VM infrastructure at scale (provisioning, patching, decommissioning) |
| 344 | +- Provisioning thousands of cores in a timely manner to meet job deadlines |
| 345 | +- Cost control — idle compute resources are expensive |
| 346 | + |
| 347 | +### Best Practices |
| 348 | + |
| 349 | +- Use low-priority or spot VMs to reduce cost for fault-tolerant workloads |
| 350 | +- Auto-scale compute pools based on job queue depth |
| 351 | +- Partition work into independent tasks when possible to maximize parallelism |
| 352 | + |
| 353 | +### Dependency Management |
| 354 | + |
| 355 | +Data allocation to thousands of cores. The job scheduler distributes work units across the compute pool, with each core processing its assigned data partition independently. |
| 356 | + |
| 357 | +### Recommended Azure Services |
| 358 | + |
| 359 | +- Azure Batch |
| 360 | +- Microsoft HPC Pack |
| 361 | +- H-series Virtual Machines (HPC-optimized) |
| 362 | + |
| 363 | +--- |
| 364 | + |
| 365 | +> Source: [Azure Architecture Center](https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/architecture/) |
0 commit comments