MyCarrier: DevOps & Cloud Transformation for Scalable Logistics SaaS

Preview description: We helped MyCarrier move toward cloud-ready DevOps: adapted the system for microservices, implemented CI/CD and test automation, moved workloads to Azure, achieved 99.9% availability, decreased update delivery time to minutes.

Full description:

Problem MyCarrier was growing fast, and the monolithic codebase became harder and more expensive to maintain. It was heavy, resource-consuming, and less suitable for the client’s long-term scaling plans. The team also needed faster delivery processes, but changes in the codebase and cloud migration had to stay unnoticed by users. Their logistics workflows could not be interrupted.

Solution IT Craft aligned the project infrastructure with a microservices architecture and prepared the system for cloud operation. The team started with a technical audit and developed the migration strategy consisting of 20-28 items. The process was divided into pre-migration, migration, and post-migration phases, thus the product could keep running while infrastructure changed step by step.

The team moved non-critical standalone jobs to the cloud, connected virtual machines to Azure Storage Account, moved logging to MongoDB Atlas, and transferred user data and related processes to the cloud. New app functionality was released as microservices. IT Craft also designed and fine-tuned a CI/CD pipeline, automated infrastructure deployments, and reduced update delivery time through regression test automation.

Results · Achieved 99.9% system availability. · Maintained high fault tolerance using three shared clusters. · Reduced update delivery time from hours to minutes. · Enabled Sprint focus changes every two weeks based on client priorities.

Tech Stack: · Azure Cloud · MongoDB Atlas · Azure SQL · Azure App Service · Azure Functions · Azure Storage Account

Second site from the same stack — and the reason they look related is that one lives inside the other. The first one is a compliance product. EZ is the infrastructure it sits in.

That's a specific design problem. The platform can't look like a competitor to its own component, and it can't look like a louder version of it either. EZ took the wider frame — four modular layers, three entry points, regulators in the trust section — while the component kept the close-up.

Same toolkit both times: Figma, a Unicorn Studio shader in the hero, the reel in Jitter. Designed with my wife, who owned the product and the content side.

Wider frame versus close-up is such a clean way to keep two related products from stepping on each other. Curious how the regulators reacted to seeing their section live in the trust page versus a static doc.