Enterprise Platform Architecture
Context
After winning TechCrunch Disrupt and securing funding from Raviga Capital, Pied Piper needed to transform from a demo into a production-ready enterprise platform. The middle-out compression algorithm had been proven, but the infrastructure to deliver it as a service to enterprise customers did not exist. Companies like Hooli, EndFrame, and potential enterprise clients demanded SLAs, security guarantees, and scalable architecture.
The initial prototype was a single-server application that could demonstrate compression but couldn't handle concurrent users or provide the reliability enterprises required.
Decision
We will build a cloud-based platform architecture with the following components:
- API Gateway: RESTful API for compression/decompression requests
- Microservices Architecture: Separate services for encoding, decoding, and job management
- Horizontal Scaling: Auto-scaling worker nodes for compression jobs
- Multi-tenant Isolation: Separate data and processing for each enterprise client
- AWS Infrastructure: Leverage EC2, S3, and SQS for reliable cloud hosting
The architecture follows a producer-consumer pattern where compression jobs are queued and processed by available workers.
Consequences
Positive
- +Enables serving multiple enterprise clients simultaneously
- +Provides 99.9% uptime SLA capability
- +Allows incremental scaling as customer base grows
- +Establishes foundation for SOC 2 compliance
Negative
- −Significant infrastructure costs compared to single-server approach
- −Increased operational complexity requiring DevOps expertise
- −Latency overhead from distributed architecture
- −Dependency on AWS limits negotiating leverage
Neutral
- ●Requires hiring dedicated infrastructure engineers
- ●Sets precedent for cloud-first deployment strategy
Alternatives Considered
Alternative 1: On-Premises Appliance
Description: Ship physical hardware appliances to enterprise customers with pre-installed compression software.
Pros:
- No ongoing cloud infrastructure costs
- Data never leaves customer premises
- One-time sale model
Cons:
- High upfront manufacturing costs
- Difficult to update and maintain
- Requires hardware support team
Why not chosen: Lack of capital for hardware manufacturing and desire for recurring revenue model.
Alternative 2: Peer-to-Peer Distribution
Description: Leverage user devices to form a distributed compression network.
Pros:
- Near-zero infrastructure costs
- Massive potential scale
- Decentralized and resilient
Cons:
- Complex coordination challenges
- Unpredictable performance
- Privacy and security concerns
Why not chosen: Enterprise customers require guaranteed performance and data isolation. This approach was later revisited as PiperNet (ADR-004).
References
- Raviga Capital term sheet requirements
- Hooli enterprise RFP specifications
- AWS Well-Architected Framework
Notes
- This architecture served Pied Piper through Series A but was eventually superseded by the decentralized PiperNet architecture (ADR-004) when the team pivoted away from centralized cloud hosting.
- The "Tres Commas" tequila incident occurred during the architecture planning phase.