## 6 Experimental Scenarios and Results
### Latency
Furthermore, Figure 15 presents a trade-off between monolithic and microservices architectures regarding latency and throughput. Ten simulations were conducted for each of the three tests, and the resulting averages were analyzed to investigate the aforementioned relationship across different data rates. Specifically, low data rates (\(0<Throughput\leq 299\) Mbps), medium data rates (\(300<Throughput\leq 599\) Mbps), and high data rates (\(Throughput\leq 600\) Mbps) were  
Figure 14: Comparison of latency between OSPF, SDN with a monolithic controller and SDN with the microservice controller. “First” columns represent the latency for the first message and “update” columns represent the latency when the route is established. covered in the analysis. The message throughput is modified from the Plecs simulation, increasing the sample period of secondary control. This graph shows the average loss rate for the centralized communication strategies is similar (with a difference of about 5%). In comparison, the distributed systems improve these results by 25 to 60% for the tests performed. The average latency was 287 ms for the global test. The latency increases as the throughput increase due to the closeness to the speed limit supported by the Raspberries. The findings reveal that monolithic architectures can offer lower latency since all the system components are closely integrated and communicate directly, reducing network communication overhead. However, this close coupling can also limit the system's horizontal scalability and ability to handle high throughput requirements. On the other hand, microservices architectures can provide higher throughput as the system can be scaled horizontally by adding more instances of individual services as needed. However, the added network communication between services can increase latency and reduce the system's response time. Typically, the Raspberry Pi 4 (ARM64) can achieve consistent transfer rates of 600-700 Mbps with appropriate network configuration and optimization. Therefore, the choice between monolithic and microservices architectures depends on the system's requirements. A monolithic architecture may be the better choice if low latency is critical and high throughput requirements are manageable with a tightly-coupled system. A microservices architecture may be more appropriate if high throughput is critical and latency can be tolerated with loosely-coupled services. Our proposal handles the surge in demand by increasing the transmitted packets. In contrast, the monolithic architecture and OSPF demonstrate reduced resilience, scalability, and multiple retransmissions. In this way, it is evident that the three strategies have an acceptable behavior according to Table 4. However, OSPF and SDN microservices are two different approaches to network management, and they have distinct characteristics and features. The results of Table 4 can be summarized as follows. Figure 15: The trade-off between latency and throughput varies across different test scenarios. Columns \(\mu S\) refers to this proposal, _Ml_ means Monilithics architecture and OSPF is \(O\). * Latency: Regarding latency, OSPF is a distributed protocol that relies on exchanging routing information between devices. It's designed to find the shortest path between two points, which can help to minimize latency. In general, monolithic architectures can offer lower latency since all the system components are closely integrated and communicate directly, reducing network communication overhead. However, this close coupling can also limit the system's horizontal scalability and ability to handle high throughput requirements. On the other hand, SDN microservices rely on a central controller that manages the network, and the latency can be affected by the communication between the controller and the devices. * Throughput: OSPF is a protocol that supports link-state routing and can quickly adapt to network topology changes. As a result, it can provide high throughput in a stable network environment.