JAKARTA, teckknow.com – Microservices: Building Applications as a Collection of Small, Independent Services—sounds fancy, right? Back when I first heard about microservices, I honestly thought it was the future of Technology, yet super complicated to pull off. But, as I dove in, I realized it’s not rocket science (well, not always), and unlocking this approach made my apps slicker and my projects less of a headache.
Microservices nearly destroyed my career before saving it. Five years ago, I led a team migrating a monolithic e-commerce platform to microservices architecture. We’d read the success stories from Netflix and Amazon, attended conferences where experts praised microservices benefits, and convinced leadership this was the future.
Understanding Microservices Architecture
Microservices architecture structures applications as collections of small, independently deployable services. Each microservice focuses on a specific business capability, runs in its own process, and communicates with other microservices through lightweight protocols like HTTP APIs or message queues. Unlike monolithic applications where all functionality exists in a single codebase and deployment unit, microservices enable teams to develop, deploy, and scale components independently.
The core principle behind microservices is that complex systems become more manageable when decomposed into smaller, focused services. A typical e-commerce application might split into microservices for user management, product catalog, shopping cart, payment processing, and order fulfillment. Each microservice maintains its own database, uses appropriate technology for its specific needs, and can be updated without affecting others.
This architectural approach emerged from companies like Amazon and Netflix dealing with massive scale and rapid development cycles. Traditional monolithic applications became bottlenecks—any change required redeploying the entire application, teams stepped on each other’s code, and scaling meant replicating the entire system even when only one component needed more resources. Microservices promised to solve these problems through independence and isolation.
My Painful Introduction to Microservices
Our migration started with enthusiasm and ended in chaos. We identified logical boundaries in our monolith and began extracting microservices. The user service came first, then products, then orders. Each extraction seemed successful in isolation, but integration revealed problems we hadn’t anticipated.
The first crisis came when simple operations suddenly required multiple network calls. Displaying a user’s order history—previously a single database query—now meant calling the user microservice for customer data, the order microservice for order details, and the product microservice for item information. What took 50 milliseconds in the monolith now took 300 milliseconds on a good day. When network latency spiked or services slowed down, page loads became unbearable.
Then came the distributed data problem. Our monolith used database transactions to ensure consistency. When a customer placed an order, we’d atomically update inventory, create the order record, and charge the payment—all or nothing. With microservices, each service owned its database. Coordinating changes across services required distributed transactions or eventual consistency patterns we’d never implemented before. Our first production bug let customers order out-of-stock items because the order microservice didn’t wait for inventory confirmation.
Debugging became a nightmare. In the monolith, stack traces showed exactly where errors occurred. With microservices, a failed request might touch five services, and figuring out which one caused the problem required correlating logs across systems. We didn’t have distributed tracing initially, so engineers spent hours manually piecing together what happened.
These painful experiences taught me that microservices introduce complexity that must be justified by real benefits. You’re trading the complexity of a large codebase for the complexity of distributed systems. That trade only makes sense in specific circumstances.
When Microservices Actually Make Sense
After our struggles, I developed clearer criteria for when microservices architecture is appropriate. Microservices work well when you have large teams where coordination overhead in a monolith exceeds the complexity of distributed systems. If you have fifty developers all working in the same codebase, merge conflicts, testing bottlenecks, and deployment coordination become serious problems. Microservices let teams work independently with clear boundaries.
Microservices also shine when different parts of your system have dramatically different scaling needs. If your payment processing handles a thousand requests per second while your admin dashboard serves ten, microservices let you scale them independently. With a monolith, you’d over-provision resources for the entire application.
Organizations needing different technology stacks for different problems benefit from microservices. Maybe your recommendation engine performs better in Python with machine learning libraries, while your transaction processing needs Java’s performance and type safety. Microservices let each component use optimal technology.
Teams requiring independent deployment cycles find microservices valuable. When your mobile team needs to ship features weekly while your infrastructure team deploys monthly, microservices enable different release cadences without coordination.
However, microservices are probably wrong if you’re a small team building a new product. The operational overhead of managing multiple services, implementing inter-service communication, and handling distributed system challenges will slow you down. Start with a well-structured monolith and extract microservices later when you have specific problems they solve.
Critical Lessons for Successful Microservices
Start with the Monolith
My biggest lesson is to start with a monolithic architecture and extract microservices only when you have clear reasons. Building microservices from day one means making service boundary decisions without understanding your domain. Those boundaries are hard to change later because they’re encoded in network calls, databases, and team structures.
We rebuilt our system by first creating a well-structured monolith with clear internal boundaries. We used modules, packages, and interfaces to separate concerns within the codebase. When we later extracted microservices, we already understood the domain and had proven boundaries that made sense.
Define Clear Service Boundaries
Successful microservices require clear boundaries based on business capabilities, not technical layers. Don’t create a “database microservice” or “UI microservice”—create services around business domains like “customer management” or “order processing.” Each microservice should own a complete business capability including its data, logic, and interfaces.
We used Domain-Driven Design principles to identify bounded contexts—areas of the business with clear boundaries and ubiquitous language. These became our microservices. The order service owned everything about orders from creation through fulfillment. The inventory service managed stock levels and availability. Clear ownership prevented the distributed monolith anti-pattern where services are technically separate but so interdependent they must be deployed together.
Invest in Infrastructure Early
Microservices require infrastructure that monoliths don’t need. You must have service discovery so services can find each other, API gateways to route external requests, distributed tracing to follow requests across services, centralized logging to aggregate logs from all services, and monitoring that understands service dependencies.
We initially underestimated this infrastructure investment. Our second attempt succeeded partly because we adopted Kubernetes for orchestration, Istio for service mesh capabilities, Jaeger for distributed tracing, and ELK stack for centralized logging before extracting services. This infrastructure made operating microservices manageable.
Embrace Eventual Consistency
Microservices mean giving up distributed transactions and immediate consistency. Each service manages its own database, and coordinating changes across services requires eventual consistency patterns. This was conceptually difficult for our team used to ACID transactions.
We implemented the saga pattern for multi-service workflows. When a customer places an order, the order service creates the order, publishes an event, the inventory service reserves stock and publishes another event, and the payment service charges the card. If any step fails, compensating transactions undo previous steps. Orders might briefly show as “processing” before confirming, but the system remains consistent and resilient to failures.
Design for Failure
In monoliths, function calls either succeed or throw exceptions. With microservices, network calls can fail in numerous ways—timeouts, connection refused, partial responses, or slow responses. Your microservices must handle these failures gracefully.
We implemented circuit breakers that stop calling failing services, timeouts to prevent waiting indefinitely, retries with exponential backoff for transient failures, and fallback responses when services are unavailable. The order history page shows cached data if the order microservice is down rather than failing completely. This resilience thinking was foreign to us initially but became essential.
Avoiding Common Microservices Pitfalls
The distributed monolith is the most common microservices anti-pattern. This happens when you split a monolith into services but maintain tight coupling through synchronous calls and shared databases. You get all the complexity of microservices with none of the benefits. Services must be independently deployable and loosely coupled through asynchronous messaging when possible.
Another pitfall is creating too many microservices too quickly. We initially created thirty services when ten would have sufficed. Managing thirty services meant thirty repositories, thirty deployment pipelines, thirty monitoring dashboards, and thirty things that could fail. Start with coarser-grained services and split them only when you have specific reasons.
Ignoring data consistency challenges leads to bugs and data corruption. You can’t just split databases and hope for the best. You need explicit strategies for maintaining consistency across services, whether through sagas, event sourcing, or CQRS patterns.
Finally, underestimating operational complexity causes production problems. Microservices require mature DevOps practices, strong monitoring and observability, automated testing at multiple levels, and on-call engineers comfortable debugging distributed systems. If your team lacks these capabilities, microservices will overwhelm you.
The Reality of Microservices
Microservices aren’t inherently better than monoliths—they’re a tool for specific problems. They enable independent deployment, technology diversity, and independent scaling at the cost of operational complexity, network latency, and data consistency challenges. The decision to adopt microservices should be based on whether their benefits outweigh their costs for your specific situation.
My hard-learned lesson is that microservices are an optimization for organizational problems, not technical ones. If you have large teams, need independent deployment, or require different scaling characteristics, microservices help. If you’re a small team building a new product, a well-structured monolith is almost always better.
Success with microservices requires investment in infrastructure, clear service boundaries based on business domains, acceptance of eventual consistency, and resilience patterns handling failures. Most importantly, it requires recognizing that microservices introduce complexity that must be justified by real benefits. Don’t adopt microservices because they’re trendy—adopt them because they solve problems you actually have.
Boost Your Proficiency: Learn from Our Expertise on Technology
Don’t Miss Our Latest Article on Linked Data: Building Bridges Between Disparate Information Sources!
