Vertical vs. Horizontal Scaling Architecture: Scale Up or Scale Out?
Compare vertical and horizontal scaling, their pros, cons, and use cases to help you choose the right strategy
As Omdia estimates, global spending on cloud infrastructure hit $90.9 billion in Q1 2025, a 21% year-on-year increase. With cloud investments surging, the ability to effectively manage cloud scalability is key for businesses aiming to succeed. As user bases and data grow, and application demands vary, the challenge is not whether to scale, but how.
There are two main strategies for cloud scalability: vertical vs. horizontal scaling.
For engineers and architects, choosing between scaling up (vertical) and scaling out (horizontal) is a key design decision that influences system architecture, reliability patterns, and cost-to-performance ratios. Although the concepts are simple, their technical implementation and long-term implications are quite significant.
This article will go over the technical trade-offs of both scaling models, their use cases, and the modern hybrid approach that powers today's most resilient applications.
What is Scalability and Why Does it Matter?
Scalability is the capability of a system, network, or process to handle increasing workloads or its potential to be expanded to support that growth.
For a business, this means the capacity to support more users, process more transactions, and manage larger amounts of data without performance issues (without slowing down).
A lack of scalability can lead to slow response times, system crashes, and a poor user experience, affecting customer satisfaction and revenue.
Vertical Scaling (Scaling Up): The Monolithic Powerhouse
Vertical scaling is the process of increasing the resources of individual machines in the system. Its upgrades involve adding more compute (vCPUs) and memory (RAM), or faster storage (I/O), to improve the performance of the existing servers and to handle larger workloads.
Pros and cons of vertical scaling
The vertical scaling approach has benefits and drawbacks like any architectural decision.
Advantages:
Simplicity of management: Managing a single powerful server is generally simpler than managing a distributed system.
Application compatibility: Many legacy applications are not designed for distributed environments and can only be scaled vertically.
Lower initial complexity: No need for load balancers or complex network configurations at the outset.
Performance: For certain applications, especially those that are not easily parallelizable, a single powerful machine can offer lower latency.
Disadvantages:
Single point of failure: If the single server fails, the entire application goes down.
Limited scalability: There's an upper limit to how much you can upgrade a single server.
Higher cost at scale: High-end hardware can be disproportionately expensive.
Downtime: Scaling up often requires a reboot, leading to a temporary outage.
Understanding these trade-offs becomes clearer when we look at how vertical scaling is implemented.
Vertical scaling mechanism
On-premise: This involves physical hardware upgrades, such as swapping a CPU for one with a higher clock speed or more cores, adding more RAM, or migrating from HDDs to NVMe SSDs to boost I/O Operations Per Second (IOPS) and reduce latency. The ultimate limit is the motherboard's capacity (the maximum number of CPU sockets and RAM slots).
In the cloud: This is a software-defined process. On platforms like AWS, it means stopping an EC2 instance (causing downtime) and changing its type, for example, from t3.medium to m5.2xlarge via API call or console command. Azure and GCP offer similar options. For example, Azure Virtual Machines allow resizing without full redeployment in some cases. GCP Compute Engine supports live migration for minimal downtime in specific setups.
Prime Use Cases & Architectural Fit of Vertical Scaling
Vertical scaling is the ideal choice for specific types of applications, including:
Relational Database Management Systems (RDBMS)
Systems like PostgreSQL, MySQL, and SQL Server are typically scaled vertically. Their dependence on ACID (Atomicity, Consistency, Isolation, Durability) transactions makes distributing writes across nodes (sharding) complex. A powerful, high-speed machine with ample RAM can manage large transactional loads with strong consistency.
Monolithic Applications
Legacy or tightly coupled apps not designed for distributed environments can't be easily scaled out. They rely on shared memory or local file systems, which makes vertical scaling the only option without re-architecture.
Stateful Applications
Any application that stores critical data in local memory can be scaled vertically. Sharing this data across instances is complex and often requires an external data store like Redis or Memcached, which adds complexity.
Technical Limitations of Vertical Scaling
While effective for the cases discussed above, vertical scaling also poses significant technical challenges.
Single point of failure (SPOF): This is the biggest drawback because if the single node fails, the entire service shuts down. High-availability (HA) solutions often use a hot-standby pair, but that effectively doubles the cost.
Diminishing returns: The cost-to-performance ratio is not linear, as a server that's twice as powerful usually costs more than twice as much. The price of high-end enterprise hardware rises exponentially at the top tier.
Hard physical and virtual limits: You cannot buy a CPU with unlimited cores or a motherboard with infinite RAM slots. In the cloud, you're limited to the largest instance type your provider offers, such as AWS's u-24tb1.112xlarge with 24 TB of RAM. Once you reach that limit, you have no way to scale further up. Since these high-end instances are expensive, cost management platforms like emma help teams optimize this vertical scaling cost. It provides AI-powered recommendations for 'rightsizing' instances to ensure you don't overpay for resources you don't need.
Horizontal Scaling (Scaling Out): The Distributed Fleet
Horizontal scaling is the process of adding more machines or nodes (servers) to a system and distributing the workload among them. This is the foundational principle behind modern, cloud-native architectures.
Pros and cons of horizontal scaling
This distributed model offers a different set of trade-offs compared to its vertical counterpart.
Advantages:
High availability and fault tolerance: Redundancy is built in, eliminating a single point of failure.
Near-limitless scalability: You can theoretically add an infinite number of servers.
Cost-effective elasticity: Especially in the cloud, you can scale out to meet peak demand and scale in to reduce costs.
Pay-as-you-go: In a cloud environment, you can align costs more closely with actual usage.
Disadvantages:
Increased complexity: Requires load balancing, distributed data management, and more sophisticated monitoring.
Application architecture: Applications must be designed to be stateless and distributable.
Potential for network latency: Communication between servers can introduce latency.
Higher initial setup complexity: Requires more architectural planning and setup.
Horizontal scaling mechanism
This is an architectural pattern, not merely a resource upgrade. Several essential components are necessary:
Load balancers: They distribute incoming requests (traffic) across a pool of application servers. Layer 4 balancers (transport layer) use IP and port for fast, non-application-aware distribution (TCP, UDP). Layer 7 balancers (application layer) inspect application data (HTTP headers, URLs) for intelligent routing and support features like sticky sessions or API endpoint-based routing.
Stateless application tier: For horizontal scaling, application servers must be stateless, not store client-specific data locally, such as session state. Instead, this data should be stored externally in a shared data store like Redis, Memcached, or a central database. This setup allows any server to handle any request at any time.
Modern Implementation: Containers and Orchestration
Today, horizontal scaling is synonymous with technologies like Docker containers and orchestration platforms like Kubernetes. Kubernetes automates the deployment and management of containerized applications across a cluster of servers and makes scaling simple.
The Horizontal Pod Autoscaler (HPA) can automate scaling based on demand. However, managing clusters in multi-cloud environments adds complexity. That is why teams use unified cloud management platforms like emma to deploy and manage Kubernetes workloads across clouds, abstracting provider-specific issues.
While scaling the stateless application tier is relatively straightforward, scaling the stateful data tier horizontally is much harder. The main strategies include:
Replication (read scaling): You create read-only copies (replicas) of the main database. The load balancer can direct all write operations (INSERT, UPDATE) to the primary database and distribute read operations (SELECT) across the replicas. This is good for read-heavy applications (like a blog or e-commerce catalog), but doesn't solve the problem of write bottlenecks.
Sharding (write scaling): It involves partitioning the database schema across multiple database instances (shards). For example, you could shard by user_id, where users 1-1,000,000 are on Shard A, users 1,000,001-2,000,000 are on Shard B, and so on. Sharding allows for massive write scalability but introduces considerable complexity in application logic, transactions, and joins across shards.
Using natively distributed databases: NoSQL databases like Cassandra, ScyllaDB, and DynamoDB were designed from the ground up for horizontal scaling. They automate data distribution and replication across the cluster, often sacrificing strong consistency guarantees of traditional RDBMS. This is where the CAP Theorem (Consistency, Availability, Partition Tolerance) becomes a critical consideration.
How emma Deploys a Kubernetes Cluster
Modern horizontal scaling relies on Kubernetes, but deploying and managing Kubernetes itself is complex, especially across different cloud providers.
Platforms like emma simplify this process into a few clicks:
Select project: First, navigate to your project, go to the Kubernetes section, and click "Add Cluster."
Choose configuration: You have two options. You can either use emma's recommendation engine, which suggests optimal locations and configurations based on cost and performance, or you can manually configure the cluster.
Manual configuration: Select a location (like Paris), a cloud provider (like Amazon EC2), and then customize the CPU type, CPU count, and memory for your node.
Add nodes: You click "Add Node." A key feature is the ability to add multiple nodes in different locations or even on different cloud providers ( for instance, adding another node in Dublin), all within the same cluster.
Deploy: Finally, you click "Kubernetes cluster" to place the order, and the deployment begins.
[Optional] Set autoscaling: emma allows you to set automatic scaling rules, specifying minimum and maximum node counts. The platform dynamically adjusts resources based on workload demand, ensuring performance while optimizing costs.
This simplifies the complex tasks of multi-cloud networking, authentication, configuration, and autoscaling.
Vertical vs Horizontal Comparison Matrix
Now that we have explored both methods in detail, let's summarize them in a direct comparison.
Which Scaling Strategy is Best for Your Company?
The choice between horizontal and vertical scaling depends on several factors. Factors include your application architecture, performance requirements, budget, and future growth projections.
When to choose vertical scaling?
Startups and small businesses: For companies with a limited budget and a smaller, more predictable user base, the simplicity and lower initial cost of vertical scaling can be appealing.
Legacy applications: Applications not built for a distributed environment and hard to re-architect are ideal for vertical scaling.
Stateful applications: Applications needing a lot of shared state that’s hard to distribute can benefit from the power of a single machine.
Database scaling (initially): Relational databases often benefit from vertical scaling in the early stages of growth because it can be easier than setting up and managing a distributed database cluster.
Example: A new e-commerce website might initially run its entire operation, web server, application server, and database on a single server. As traffic increases, they can easily move the server's resources in the cloud to manage the higher load without needing to re-architect their application.
When to choose horizontal scaling?
High-growth companies and enterprises: For businesses expecting rapid user growth and unpredictable traffic spikes (like a media company or a large e-commerce platform), horizontal scaling provides the necessary elasticity and high availability.
Cloud-native applications: Modern, microservices-based applications are designed to be distributed and are a natural fit for horizontal scaling.
Stateless applications: Web and application servers that do not store session data locally can be easily replicated and scaled horizontally.
Big data and high-performance computing: Workloads that can be parallelized, such as big data processing and scientific simulations, are ideal for horizontal scaling.
Example: Netflix relies heavily on horizontal scaling. They distribute their services across a massive fleet of servers to handle millions of concurrent viewers. During peak hours, they automatically scale out to add more servers and then scale back in during quieter periods to save costs.
The Engineer's Choice: A Hybrid Reality
The optimal solution is rarely one or the other but a pragmatic hybrid approach that uses the best strategy for the right job. A typical modern architecture looks like this:
Web and application tier: A fleet of stateless application servers running in Docker containers, managed and auto-scaled horizontally by Kubernetes. It provides elasticity and high availability at the front end.
Caching tier: A distributed in-memory cache like a Redis cluster. It manages sessions and frequently accessed data and is itself scaled horizontally.
Database tier: A vertically scaled RDBMS cluster configured for high availability (a primary with a hot standby failover). This centralizes the transactional "source of truth" and ensures strong data consistency where it matters most.
Database read tier: To protect the primary database, horizontally scaled read replicas are added to serve read-heavy traffic.
This hybrid model uses the strengths of both approaches. It uses the elasticity and resilience of horizontal scaling for the stateless tiers, and the simplicity and strong consistency of vertical scaling for the core stateful database.
Scaling Smarter with the emma Platform
When it comes to horizontal scaling, managing workloads across multiple cloud instances or hybrid environments can quickly become complex. With emma, organizations can orchestrate these environments at any scale through one platform, automatically scaling workloads across clusters and providers to maintain peak performance while keeping costs in check.
For vertical scaling, emma’s AI-driven insights and single click workflows simplify the process of rightsizing VMs and bare-metal resources. This makes scaling up a single server simple – without requiring manual reconfigurations – and cost-efficient, reducing the risk of overprovisioning while maximizing resource utilization. Essentially, emma delivers full visibility, intelligent recommendations, and automated optimization, so organizations can grow their infrastructure confidently without losing control over performance or budget.
emma is a comprehensive, cloud management platform that helps organizations orchestrate, optimize, and manage multi-cloud and hybrid environments efficiently. By operational visibility and agility with AI-driven insights and recommendations, emma makes both horizontal and vertical scaling smarter and more cost-effective.
.webp)