Every developer strives to speed up product development while maintaining enough flexibility and confident control over the process. Microservices application architecture helps solve these tasks and, over the past 10 years, has begun actively competing with the traditional monolithic approach. To begin, let’s look at the difference between them.
The difference between these two software development approaches is easiest to illustrate with an example. Let’s imagine two online stores: one implemented as a monolith and the other as microservices.
A monolithic online store is a single, indivisible structure that combines all components: databases (catalog, customer data), shopping cart, order and payment forms. All of these elements are tightly interconnected and located on the same server.
In a microservices system, each component is an independent module that developers can work on separately. And naturally, nothing requires hosting these modules on a single server.
Thus, microservices architecture is a kind of constructor that allows you to add new elements painlessly as you scale the application. A monolith, on the other hand, can be compared to a solid wall: scaling here is only possible by adding another identical monolith.
It’s worth adding that microservices are sometimes mistakenly perceived as a set of very small services. This is not the case: for example, the database of a large online store may contain millions of records and occupy tens of gigabytes, yet still be just one of the modules within the microservices architecture of the whole application.
Now let’s look at the main characteristics of microservices technology in comparison with a monolith and see how both approaches solve the same developer tasks.
Development speed and frequency of updates increase with microservices thanks to modularity: changes are made not to the entire codebase but to individual modules. With a monolith, however, the whole platform must be updated first, which increases testing and debugging time. As a result, development slows down and updates are released less frequently.
The microservices model offers significantly greater flexibility because each service can be written in its own programming language and may use different libraries and data-storage technologies. With a monolith, the situation is different: changing the technology stack is nearly impossible. Developers are forced to stick to the initial tools.
Each module in a microservices architecture is self-contained, making it possible to bring in programmers who are familiar with the functionality of a specific service. This substantially lowers the onboarding threshold. With a monolith, new developers must dive into the code of the entire application, understand the functions of every block, and only then begin productive work. Thus, maintaining a monolith is more dependent on specific team members.
The modularity of microservices architecture also positively affects optimization, since developers can optimize each service separately. Optimizing a monolithic structure is more difficult because the team must account for links between indivisible blocks, and updating any one of them inevitably affects the entire application.
The distributed structure of microservices and their ability to run on separate servers make scaling fast and easy. In monoliths, scaling one component inevitably requires scaling the entire application as a whole.
Because services are hosted on different servers and have a modular structure, microservices architecture achieves independence of each module. This significantly increases system resilience: a failure in one service does not cause the entire application to fail. With a monolith, the situation is different: all components are tightly interconnected, so the failure of one module can make the entire application inoperable.
As we’ve seen, microservices have advantages in many key areas. But does this mean you need to abandon monoliths as an outdated approach and immediately switch to microservices? The answer depends on the current state of your project. And let’s say right away: rushing to adopt microservices is not always the right choice. Distributed architecture also has its drawbacks.
First, microservices require ensuring network connectivity between modules. If a network connection is unstable, this leads to delays and data inconsistencies, which create potential problems in application behavior.
Second, each module of a microservices system requires separate testing and health monitoring. Additionally, you will need to allocate cloud resources for each module, which may increase costs.
Third, with the microservices approach, teams responsible for different modules may encounter interaction issues. This means you may need a connecting link in the form of DevOps specialists who can streamline collaboration and speed up development.
All the factors listed above allow us to conclude that the transition to microservices must be timely. Usually, during the early stages of a project, this is unnecessary, especially if developers have limited human or financial resources.
Switching to a microservices architecture makes sense when there is a clear need for significant scaling, and scaling a monolith has already become difficult. Microservices may be right for you if:
You have a large team. In this case, it makes sense to divide the team into separate, independent groups, each responsible for its own service;
You have a complex, branched application. In this case, it’s far more convenient to update and maintain modules separately than to rebalance the entire system each time;
Your application traffic is highly variable. For example, you see sharp spikes in load during certain periods. Microservices' distributed structure allows quick scaling during peak loads, after which you can easily return to normal capacity levels;
Your application is frequently updated. Working with separate modules in this scenario is much simpler, and new releases will be significantly faster.
If your project meets at least one of these criteria, this is a reason to consider breaking it into independent elements. However, if your application is relatively small and does not require frequent updates, it is reasonable not to rush away from monolithic architecture.
A modern development approach requires a containerization platform. In most cases, developers use Docker for these purposes. Docker tools allow them to isolate the application from the infrastructure, meaning they can work with it equally well locally or in the cloud, which is very convenient for development.
Once containers become numerous, an orchestrator becomes essential for managing and organizing groups of containers. Kubernetes is most commonly used as an orchestrator due to its strong compatibility with Docker.
Another necessary tool is a load balancer, which ensures even distribution of network traffic across all cloud resources. This significantly increases the application’s fault tolerance.