Api Gateway easy
What is the primary performance 'cost' associated with introducing an API Gateway versus a direct connection to a microservice?
- A It significantly increases the amount of storage space needed for the database.
- B Incremental Latency: It introduces an additional network 'hop' and processing time as the request passes through the Gateway.
- C It makes the network speed decrease for the entire datacenter.
- D It prevents the use of multi-core CPUs in the backend microservices.
Answer: B. Incremental Latency: It introduces an additional network 'hop' and processing time as the request passes through the Gateway.
Every layer you add to a system has a performance cost. A request must now travel from Client -> Gateway, and then from Gateway -> Service. While this adds milliseconds (a 'hop'), the security and organizational benefits of the Gateway almost always outweigh this small latency penalty.
One system design question a day, with spaced repetition so the ones you miss come back.
Get the appRelated questions
- Your Gateway communicates with backends via HTTP/1.1 connections. A slow backend service causes 'Head-of-Line Blocking'. How does switching to HTTP/2 as the Gateway-to-Backend transport mitigate this?
- What is the primary architectural role of an API Gateway in a microservices environment?
- Why is 'Stateless Token Validation' (e.g., using JWTs) significantly more scalable at the Gateway level than 'Stateful Validation' (e.g., using Opaque/Reference Tokens)?
- Your Gateway is configured to cache any URL ending in `.css` or `.jpg`. An attacker tricks a victim into visiting `https://api.com/v1/profile/info/style.css`. How can this lead to an 'Account Takeover'?
- An API is receiving a sudden surge of 10,000 requests per second from a single IP address. How does an API Gateway preserve the stability of the backend services?
- How can an API Gateway help prevent 'Double Charging' in a payment system when a mobile client retries a failed request due to a poor connection?