docs(10_Wiki): Topic_Business/General/Graphic/Programming을 Topics/ 하위로 이동
최상위 10_Wiki/Topic_*였던 4개 카테고리 폴더를 10_Wiki/Topics/Topic_* 로 재배치. 콘텐츠 변경 없음(순수 폴더 이동) — Topics/ 하위 나머지 폴더는 이미 지난 커밋에서 전부 정리된 상태(잔존 항목은 에이전트 운영 상태 및 사용자가 보존을 요청한 업데이트0615/무제 3.canvas 뿐).
This commit is contained in:
Antigravity Agent
+191
@@ -0,0 +1,191 @@
|
||||
---
|
||||
id: wiki-2026-0508-sara-software-architecture-revie
|
||||
title: SARA (Software Architecture Review and Assessment)
|
||||
category: 10_Wiki/Topics
|
||||
status: verified
|
||||
canonical_id: self
|
||||
aliases: [SARA, Architecture Review, Architecture Assessment]
|
||||
duplicate_of: none
|
||||
source_trust_level: A
|
||||
confidence_score: 0.85
|
||||
verification_status: applied
|
||||
tags: [architecture, review, governance, sei, atam]
|
||||
raw_sources: []
|
||||
last_reinforced: 2026-05-10
|
||||
github_commit: pending
|
||||
tech_stack:
|
||||
language: none
|
||||
framework: ATAM/ARID/SAAM
|
||||
---
|
||||
|
||||
# SARA (Software Architecture Review and Assessment)
|
||||
|
||||
## 매 한 줄
|
||||
> **"매 architecture 를 매 quality-attribute 관점에서 systematic review 하는 프로세스"**. SEI (Carnegie Mellon) 의 SAAM (1996) → ATAM (2000) → ARID (2002) 계보의 generic 명칭. 매 핵심: stakeholder, scenario, tradeoff, risk 의 명시적 enumeration. 매 2026 modern variant: AWS Well-Architected Review, Architecture Decision Records (ADR), Wardley Mapping 과 결합.
|
||||
|
||||
## 매 핵심
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 SEI 계보
|
||||
- **SAAM** (Software Architecture Analysis Method, 1996): scenario-based, modifiability 위주.
|
||||
- **ATAM** (Architecture Tradeoff Analysis Method, 2000): multi-quality, tradeoff 명시.
|
||||
- **ARID** (Active Reviews for Intermediate Designs, 2002): incomplete design review.
|
||||
- **CBAM** (Cost-Benefit Analysis Method): economic angle.
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 ATAM 9-step (Kazman et al.)
|
||||
1. Present ATAM
|
||||
2. Present business drivers
|
||||
3. Present architecture
|
||||
4. Identify architectural approaches
|
||||
5. Generate quality attribute utility tree
|
||||
6. Analyze approaches (round 1)
|
||||
7. Brainstorm scenarios + prioritize
|
||||
8. Analyze approaches (round 2)
|
||||
9. Present results
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 산출물
|
||||
- Utility tree: quality attribute → scenario → priority/difficulty.
|
||||
- Risk / non-risk / sensitivity point / tradeoff point.
|
||||
- Architectural decision record (ADR) update.
|
||||
|
||||
### 매 응용
|
||||
1. Pre-launch architecture sign-off.
|
||||
2. Major refactor / re-platforming 의사결정.
|
||||
3. M&A due diligence.
|
||||
4. AWS/GCP Well-Architected formal review.
|
||||
|
||||
## 💻 패턴
|
||||
|
||||
### Utility tree (markdown)
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
- Performance
|
||||
- Latency
|
||||
- [H, M] p99 checkout < 300ms under 10k rps
|
||||
- [M, L] search autocomplete < 80ms
|
||||
- Throughput
|
||||
- [H, H] sustained 50k rps with 3 AZ failover
|
||||
- Availability
|
||||
- [H, M] 99.95% monthly, RPO=5min, RTO=15min
|
||||
- Security
|
||||
- [H, H] all PII encrypted at rest, TLS 1.3 in transit
|
||||
- Modifiability
|
||||
- [M, M] new payment provider 매 < 2 sprint
|
||||
# [Importance, Difficulty]: H/M/L
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Scenario template
|
||||
```yaml
|
||||
id: SCN-007
|
||||
quality: availability
|
||||
source: AZ outage in us-east-1a
|
||||
stimulus: complete loss of one AZ for 30 min
|
||||
artifact: checkout service
|
||||
environment: peak traffic, Black Friday
|
||||
response: traffic auto-shifts to remaining 2 AZ
|
||||
response_measure: error rate < 0.5% for full 30 min
|
||||
priority: H
|
||||
difficulty: M
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Risk / Tradeoff log
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
| ID | Type | Description | Affected QAs |
|
||||
|----|------|-------------|--------------|
|
||||
| R1 | Risk | Single Redis primary; failover untested | Availability |
|
||||
| T1 | Tradeoff | Multi-region active-active raises consistency cost | Availability ↔ Consistency |
|
||||
| S1 | Sensitivity | p99 latency depends on connection-pool size | Performance |
|
||||
| NR1| Non-risk | Stateless API tier, autoscale verified | Scalability |
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### ADR (Architecture Decision Record)
|
||||
```markdown
|
||||
# ADR-0042: Adopt event-driven checkout via Kafka
|
||||
|
||||
Date: 2026-05-10
|
||||
Status: accepted
|
||||
Context: synchronous REST chain causes p99 spikes and tight coupling.
|
||||
Decision: introduce Kafka topic `orders.v1`; checkout publishes; downstream
|
||||
services (inventory, fulfilment, notify) consume independently.
|
||||
Consequences:
|
||||
+ Decoupling, replayability, easier multi-region.
|
||||
- New ops surface (Kafka), schema-registry overhead.
|
||||
- Eventual consistency: UI must surface "processing" state.
|
||||
Alternatives considered: SQS (vendor lock), gRPC streaming (still coupled).
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Wardley Map sketch (text)
|
||||
```text
|
||||
Visible
|
||||
^ User --- Checkout UI
|
||||
| |
|
||||
| Order API ---- Payment Gateway (Stripe, product)
|
||||
| |
|
||||
| Order DB (Postgres, custom-built→product)
|
||||
| |
|
||||
| Compute (k8s on EKS, commodity)
|
||||
v
|
||||
Invisible
|
||||
[Genesis] -- [Custom] -- [Product] -- [Commodity]
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### AWS Well-Architected lens (CLI)
|
||||
```bash
|
||||
# 매 AWS WA Tool — SARA-equivalent at AWS scale
|
||||
aws wellarchitected create-workload \
|
||||
--workload-name checkout-2026 \
|
||||
--description "Checkout platform" \
|
||||
--environment PRODUCTION \
|
||||
--aws-regions us-east-1 us-west-2 \
|
||||
--lenses arn:aws:wellarchitected::aws:lens/wellarchitected \
|
||||
arn:aws:wellarchitected::aws:lens/serverless
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
### Lightweight LARA (lightweight ARID, 1-day variant)
|
||||
```text
|
||||
09:00 kickoff + business drivers
|
||||
10:00 architect 30-min walkthrough
|
||||
10:30 utility tree workshop
|
||||
12:00 lunch
|
||||
13:00 scenario brainstorm + dot voting
|
||||
14:00 round-1 analysis (top 5 scenarios)
|
||||
16:00 risk/tradeoff log finalize
|
||||
17:00 readout to stakeholders
|
||||
```
|
||||
|
||||
## 매 결정 기준
|
||||
| 상황 | Approach |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| Greenfield, pre-launch | Full ATAM (3-day) |
|
||||
| Time-boxed, single team | LARA (1-day) |
|
||||
| Cloud-native AWS | Well-Architected Review per pillar |
|
||||
| Continuous | ADR + monthly architecture council |
|
||||
| Incomplete design | ARID (active review) |
|
||||
| Cost-driven | CBAM |
|
||||
|
||||
**기본값**: 매 ADR + 매 quarterly LARA + 매 cloud Well-Architected annual.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🔗 Graph
|
||||
- 부모: [[Software Architecture]] · [[Quality Attributes]]
|
||||
- 변형: [[ATAM]]
|
||||
- Adjacent: [[Risk_Management]] · [[Threat Modeling]] · [[Tech Radar]]
|
||||
|
||||
## 🤖 LLM 활용
|
||||
**언제**: 매 utility tree 초안, 매 scenario 생성, 매 ADR 작성, 매 tradeoff 분석.
|
||||
**언제 X**: 매 final sign-off — human architect + stakeholder accountability 필수.
|
||||
|
||||
## ❌ 안티패턴
|
||||
- **Architecture astronautics**: 매 utility tree 만 만들고 매 scenario 분석 skip.
|
||||
- **Single-quality focus**: 매 performance 만 — security/modifiability 무시.
|
||||
- **Review without authority**: 매 결과를 매 누구도 implement 강제 못함.
|
||||
- **One-shot review**: 매 launch 전 한 번 — drift 후 재평가 없음.
|
||||
- **No ADR**: 매 결정의 *why* 가 없어 매 6개월 뒤 누구도 이유 모름.
|
||||
- **Theatre review**: 매 형식적 sign-off, 매 실제 risk 미공개.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🧪 검증 / 중복
|
||||
- Verified: SEI ATAM technical reports (Kazman, Klein, Clements 2000–2002); Bass et al. *Software Architecture in Practice* 4e (2021); AWS Well-Architected Framework (2025).
|
||||
- 신뢰도 A.
|
||||
|
||||
## 🕓 Changelog
|
||||
| 날짜 | 변경 |
|
||||
|---|---|
|
||||
| 2026-05-08 | Phase 1 |
|
||||
| 2026-05-10 | Manual cleanup — ATAM 9-step, utility tree, ADR, Well-Architected |
|
||||
Reference in New Issue
Block a user