Why Your Microservices Architecture is Probably Overkill (And How I Learned to Love the Monolith Again) #1
Loading…
x
Reference in New Issue
Block a user
No description provided.
Delete Branch "%!s()"
Deleting a branch is permanent. Although the deleted branch may continue to exist for a short time before it actually gets removed, it CANNOT be undone in most cases. Continue?
Why Your Microservices Architecture is Probably Overkill (And How I Learned to Love the Monolith Again)
We’ve all been seduced by the siren song of microservices.
The promise of tiny, independent services, each doing its own thing perfectly, sounds like developer nirvana. But you know what? Sometimes, it’s a giant pain in the ass.
I fell hard for this hype.
We were building a new system, and I was determined to do it the “right” way. Out went the trusty monolith, in came a swarm of microservices. At first, it felt amazing — so clean, so modular!
Then reality hit.
Turns out, the complexity didn’t disappear; it just shifted. Here’s why microservices might be killing your soul:
The Chatty Kathy Problem
Remember when you could call a function in the same codebase? Now, half your services spend their time gossiping over the network. And when one of them throws a tantrum? Good luck debugging that mess.
Your once-simple function calls have turned into a never-ending saga of cross-service requests, latency headaches, and the constant fear of something breaking somewhere in the network.
You think you’ve got it handled with some REST APIs and message queues, but the truth is, those precious milliseconds add up. Need to fetch a tiny piece of data? That’s a network call. Process a simple task? Another one. Your system spends more time on gossip than actual work.
Then, the inevitable happens. One of your services goes rogue, throwing a network timeout or spitting out garbled data. Have fun untangling that mess. Distributed debugging makes finding a missing sock seem easy. Each network hop is another suspect, another layer of complexity that could be the root of your misery.
Deployment Hell
Remember when deploying code didn’t make you want to change careers and become a llama farmer? Yeah, those days are long gone. With microservices, what used to be a manageable process has morphed into a multi-headed beast with a fiery temper.
Suddenly, instead of one application, you’re juggling a dozen mini-monsters, each requiring its own build process, testing suite, and careful orchestration. Your CI/CD pipeline becomes this sprawling, convoluted Rube Goldberg machine that always seems to fail in a new and exciting way. One incorrect config, one mismatched dependency, and everything explodes. And while you’re playing whack-a-mole with deployment errors, actual feature development grinds to a halt. Congrats, you’ve traded code complexity for operational complexity.
The Observability Tax
Remember when a few strategically placed log lines could tell you what was going wrong? With microservices, those days are a distant memory. Understanding your system now requires a substantial investment in some seriously pricey tooling.
Want to trace a request as it hops across services? That’ll be a distributed tracing solution, please. Need to make sense of the tidal wave of logs your services generate? Log aggregation tools await. And don’t forget about those fancy dashboards and alerting systems.
Suddenly, a chunk of your budget and engineering time is dedicated to simply figuring out if your system is even working. The irony is, with all this added complexity, it often feels harder than ever to pinpoint the root cause of issues. You’re paying a hefty price for the illusion of visibility.
They’re Not That Independent
The whole promise of microservices is this beautiful vision of loosely coupled, interchangeable pieces. Turns out, that’s often a load of crap. In reality, those “independent” services get tangled up in surprisingly messy ways.
Think you can tweak the API of one service with no consequences? Think again. Hidden assumptions, undocumented dependencies, and subtle changes in behavior can ripple through your system like a bad case of food poisoning. Before you know it, you’re knee-deep in a refactor that spans multiple teams, wondering why you ever bought into the hype. So much for the promise of agility — now you’re afraid to change anything at all.
When a Monolith Is Just…Better
Let’s ditch the dogma for a minute. For smaller projects, teams, or systems where the components are inherently interconnected, a monolith can be a lifesaver. It trades trendiness for simplicity.
Think about it: no network latency headaches, straightforward debugging, and deployments that don’t make you want to cry. Sure, it might get a bit messy as it grows, but careful modularization within the codebase can mitigate that. And let’s be real, the sprawling, distributed mess a poorly-architected microservice system can turn into isn’t exactly a walk in the park either.
Don’t get me wrong, I’m not saying microservices are evil. They shine for large-scale systems, or when you need true independence between components. But blindly following the hype and splitting everything into microservices just for the sake of it? That’s a recipe for unnecessary complexity and developer burnout.
Sometimes, the “old-fashioned” monolith is the smarter choice. It lets you focus on delivering value instead of constantly wrestling with infrastructure.
I’m not on some anti-microservice crusade. They have their uses, especially for massive, complex systems where scalability is paramount. But the tech world has a bad habit of overhyping the latest shiny thing, making tried and true solutions feel outdated.
Let’s stop blindly splitting every application into microservices just because it’s what the cool kids are doing. Take a step back, honestly assess your project’s needs, and consider whether the complexity trade-off is truly worth it. If a well-designed monolith can deliver the same functionality with less operational overhead, why wouldn’t you choose that?
Microservices shouldn’t be the default; they should be a conscious decision. Let’s ditch the dogma and embrace a more pragmatic approach to architecture — one where the right tool for the job wins, even if it’s not the trendiest one. And hey, maybe you’ll even rediscover a newfound appreciation for the straightforwardness of a well-crafted monolith.