A reactive microservices architecture is designed to handle large amounts of concurrent requests, and uses an event-driven, asynchronous approach to processing those requests. In contrast, a non-reactive architecture uses a more traditional, synchronous approach to processing requests.
In a reactive microservices architecture, the focus is on responsiveness, resiliency, and elasticity. This is achieved through the use of technologies such as Reactive Streams, the Reactive Manifesto, and the Actor model. Reactive programming involves handling events and streams of data as they occur, rather than waiting for them to complete. This allows the system to handle more requests concurrently, and can lead to improved scalability and performance.
On the other hand, a non-reactive microservices architecture follows a more traditional request-response model, where the client sends a request to the server, which then processes it and sends a response back to the client. This model is often used in systems where the workload is relatively predictable and the system can be scaled vertically to handle increased demand.
Both architectures have their advantages and disadvantages, and the choice between them depends on the specific requirements of the system. For example, a reactive architecture may be better suited for systems that require high throughput and low latency, while a non-reactive architecture may be better suited for systems with more predictable workloads.
Overall, the decision between a reactive and non-reactive architecture should be based on careful analysis of the requirements and tradeoffs of each approach.