For much of the last decade, enterprises fought against data silos, isolated persistence stores holding untold but inaccessible knowledge. Their primary weapon was the data lake: a huge centralized datastore that held terabytes of domain-specific data in a single logical location. These lakes were first on-premises and then migrated to the cloud to save costs. With all an enterprise’s data in one place, the theory was that brilliant data scientists would spot trends using diverse data sets and give the business a strategic advantage.
It turns out data lakes bring challenges of their own. At least that’s the general takeaway from numerous experts, noting frustrations borne of:
Among the proposed solutions: replacing or supplementing data lakes with a “data mesh” (advocated by Zhamak Dehgani in a 2019 blog post, a 2020 blog post, and a conference keynote presentation) or a “data fabric” (advocated by Gartner). Both fabric and mesh move data ownership back to domains. However, while these concepts are similar in naming and domain-centeredness, there are key differences. While the data mesh requires more upfront investment, it is more likely to improve your business’ decision-making, particularly when it utilizes an event-driven architecture.
Both data mesh and data fabric emphasize domains regaining control of their data, rather than pushing it into a data lake. Which makes sense: domains understand both their own data and how they want to utilize data from other domains. Both concepts envision separate planes: one for business transactions and an additional layer used for data.
These layers serve separate purposes and as a result have different characteristics. The transactional layer facilitates business use cases: a customer buys a pair of chinos or account information flows from Salesforce into SAP. In modern enterprises that means that each request goes to applications independently, and as close to real-time as possible. In contrast, the data layer supports analytics use cases: determining monthly sales numbers or updating the number of taxicabs currently on the streets of New York, for example. This information may travel in real-time or may be time-delayed in order to ensure quality. And transactions on the data layer can be combined into aggregate statistics, as opposed to being sent individually.
But pushing data back into domains reincarnates the original problem of data silos. The solution for both mesh and fabric relies on establishing connectivity between the domains, ensuring that data can be discovered and the quality can be governed.
Gartner’s conception of a data fabric relies heavily on the “backbone” of a knowledge graph. The knowledge graph describes the relationship between data sources throughout the entire fabric. Using this graph, machine learning and artificial intelligence determine the relationships between various sources of data and infer metadata automatically. The result is a catalog of data resources that can be used by consumers across the enterprise.
On the data access side, while there is support for events, data fabric puts a heavy emphasis on a request/reply interaction style. The knowledge graph allows natural language queries to be run against the knowledge of the entire enterprise. At high enough maturity levels, and given enough metadata, Gartner’s conception of the data fabric can automatically create integrations to allow for even higher order conclusions.
While there are undoubtedly benefits from an all-seeing, all-knowing, all-adapting knowledge graph, a major driver for the data fabric is cost savings and agility. Rather than creating additional data stores and creating additional services to access them, enterprises leverage existing datastores and services. Rather than defining standard metadata or mapping between differing conceptions of fields, machine learning does the work. After all, machines work quickly and don’t experience Zoom fatigue after attempting to figure out what “status” means to 14 different databases.
In contrast to data fabric’s emphasis on the knowledge graph, the focal point in data mesh is the “data product” that exposes the domain’s data to outsiders. These data products consist of separate data persistence stores (e.g. databases or cloud object stores), along with services for accessing the data. Because data products are distinct from existing transactional datastores, the data mesh puts the onus on domain teams to design data products. That means thinking critically about:
The process of creating data products also cements the ownership of both the transactional product and the data product by the domain team. There are huge benefits to domain-experts considering the needs of data consumers and creating metadata standards. And frankly, putting faith in ML/AI to work out challenges has not been working out so well lately judging by the headlines for one particularly famous Jeopardy! contestant.
The answers to these questions inform the design of data products, which most likely use a data format, metadata and delivery mechanism very different from those used for day-to-day business transactions. As Dehgani writes, “The source aligned domain datasets must be separated from the internal source systems’ datasets. The nature of the domain datasets is very different from the internal data that the operational systems use to do their job.”
Once implemented, the domain team advertises the finished data product to outside domains for their consumption in a centralized governance system. The quality of the data product is the responsibility of the domain team, just like their services on the transactional layer. In practical terms that means bringing over concepts from the transactional layer: “Each domain dataset must establish a Service Level Objectives for the quality of the data it provides: timeliness, error rates, etc.,” writes Dehgani.
Intentionally designing data products allows domain teams the flexibility to customize both the specifications and the number of data products available.
Per Dehgani, the best way of distributing information on the data plane is through events that contain raw business data. For less sophisticated consumers and to allow more quality control, aggregating data into higher level information is also suggested. Here’s a brief comparison between different models of data product:
|Domain Data Events||Aggregated Domain Data Snapshots|
|Format||Events||Serialized files on an object store|
|Time domain||Real-time||“Time interval that closely reflects the interval of change for their domain”|
|Data Quality||Lower level of accuracy, including missing or duplicate events||Higher expectations of clean data|
Well-designed events let data consumers receive low-level raw data, sent in real-time information, with metadata that provides valuable context for the information. The price for those benefits is potentially redundant work as multiple consumers perform the same operations, along with lower data quality in the form of duplicate messages and less enrichment. In contrast, aggregated snapshots are updated less frequently, but in a more easily digestible form. Without access to raw data, there is less customization possible.
Assuming that your organization gives priority to developing domain data events over aggregate data snapshots, picking the underlying real-time event infrastructure becomes crucial. Without real-time infrastructure, the carefully crafted data products are just another data silo.
What should you look for when choosing infrastructure for an event-driven data mesh? Candidates should be:
Event-driven architecture at the transactional layer accelerates customer interaction, giving businesses a leg up on their competition. One layer down, an event-driven data mesh can do the same for analytics, decreasing the time it takes to get answers to crucial questions using data from across domains. The first steps down the path are to choose an approach (data fabric vs. data mesh) and pick an event-driven infrastructure that can support the initiative.
As an architect in Solace’s Office of the CTO, Jesse works helps organizations of all kinds design integration systems that take advantage of on event-driven architecture and microservices to delivery amazing performance, robustness, and scalability. Prior to his tenure with Solace, Jesse was an independent consultant who helped companies design application infrastructure and middleware systems around IBM products like MQ, WebSphere, DataPower Gateway, Application Connect Enterprise and Transformation Extender.
Jesse holds a BA from Hope College and a masters from the University of Michigan, and has achieved certification with both Boomi and Mulesoft technologies. When he’s not designing the fastest, most robust, most scalable enterprise computing systems in the world, Jesse enjoys playing hockey, skiing and swimming.[position] => [url] => https://solace.com/blog/author/jessemenning/ ) )