Microservices vs Simple Architecture

We must adopt and learn new technologies and trends. But before implementing any technology, we must consider all dependencies related to the software solutions. Currently, the most hyped buzzword is Microservices Architecture, and many are trying to implement it in every application without considering its requirements! I have observed some cases where engineers break down systems in ways that are not truly microservices, resulting in nanoservices instead.

Understanding the requirements, business domain, users and their pain points, breaking down problems into manageable parts, understanding constraints (such as scalability, performance, security and maintainability), and defining desired outcomes are fundamental to designing effective solutions. Based on all these factors, we should determine the best solution for each specific system, whether it be Monolith, SOA, Event Driven, or Microservices. For many applications, microservices are essential. In such cases, there is no other way but implement microservices. Microservices architecture is primarily necessary for managing complex, large-scale operations where independent scalability, flexibility and continuous deployment are essential, as example: Facebook, Netflix, AirBNB, Spotify, Amazon, Alibaba, PayPal etc etc.

Considering system complexity, operational (maintenance) overhead, deployment challenges, and data management issues, my personal opinion is that we should avoid microservices architecture if the system does not explicitly require it. In scenarios where the user base is limited, input/output operations are not intensive, and the system requirements are relatively straightforward, in these cases a simpler architecture might be more appropriate. Advantages of simple architecture rather than microservices:

• Overhead Reduction: Microservices introduce additional overhead in terms of deployment, communication between services, and managing multiple services. For a small-scale application, this can add unnecessary complexity and maintenance burden.
• Simpler Development and Deployment: A monolithic architecture can be simpler to develop, test and deploy. It allows for faster iteration and more straightforward debugging.
• Cost Efficiency: Managing a microservices architecture often requires more resources, including infrastructure and skilled personnel. For a smaller application, the cost of these additional resources may not be justified.
• Performance Considerations: In a small-scale application with limited I/O, the performance benefits of microservices, such as independent scaling of components, might not be as critical. A well-optimized monolithic application can meet performance requirements without the need for distributed service management.
• Easier Coordination: A single, unified codebase simplifies coordination among team members. It reduces the need for extensive inter-service communication protocols and helps maintain consistency across the application.

However, it is important to consider potential future growth and scalability needs. If there is a possibility that the application might scale significantly in the future, it might be beneficial to design with modularity in mind, even if you start with a simpler architecture. This can facilitate a smoother transition to microservices if and when the need arises.