explain why we should use microservices

From stuck to smooth: Why does your mechanical project need a microservices architecture?

Picture this: you design a sophisticated robotic arm, with all joints directed by a central controller. It works perfectly at first, but as the functions increase—visual recognition, real-time feedback, and adaptability to different loads—the controller begins to heat up, the program becomes bloated, and a small bug may cause the entire system to freeze. At this time, should you upgrade the heat dissipation of the controller, or rethink the command method?

Many machinery and automation projects are facing similar "growing pains." The traditional monolithic architecture is like an omniscient and omnipotent old professor, with all logic squeezed into one brain; while microservices are like a professional basketball team, with each member performing their own duties and completing the offense through tacit cooperation. When we talk about servo motors, steering gear controls or complex mechanical systems, the latter are often better suited to the pace of modern production.

What practical problems do microservices solve?

First, it tolerates failures. In a single system, if an encoder processing module fails, the entire production line may be shut down. Under a microservices architecture, that module can be restarted, repaired, or replaced independently, just like replacing a specific servo on a robotic arm—other joints still keep working. The system will not collapse due to local problems.

Second, it embraces change. Do you need to upgrade the motor control, but don’t want to affect the running motion trajectory planning service? In microservices, it's like changing the tires on a car without having to rebuild the engine. Each service can be iterated independently, using different programming languages ​​and even running on different hardware, making technology iteration breezy and low-risk.

Third, it scales on demand. Certain tasks (such as real-time data monitoring) require a lot of computing power, while basic logic control is relatively stable. You can scale only high-load modules without overprovisioning the entire system for peak loads. This is like emphasizing only the violin part in an orchestra, rather than asking all the instruments to be louder.

One might ask: “But aren’t distributed systems more complex?”

Indeed, microservices introduce new considerations - inter-service communication, data consistency, deployment coordination. But modern toolchains have made this controllable. More importantly, the nature of complexity has changed: from "tangled mazes of code" to "collaboration of clearly defined interfaces." The former makes you nervous when fixing a bug; the latter is like repairing a modular machine tool, with each unit having clear boundaries and manuals.

For example:kpowerWhen assisting a multi-axis synchronization project, the customer initially wrote motion control, temperature monitoring, and safety verification into the same PLC program. When a customer wants to add visual positioning functionality, almost 70% of the code has to be rewritten. Later, the microservice idea was adopted to split each function into independent services - the motion control service only cares about trajectory execution, and the vision service provides coordinate offsets. The two communicate through lightweight messages. When upgrading again, they only replaced the visual module, shortening the project cycle by 60%.

How to start this architectural transformation?

It doesn’t have to be disruptive overnight. You can start piloting from edge functions: for example, first split log records or alarm notifications into independent services. Feel how they deploy independently and talk to other modules. It's like modifying mechanical equipment - few people replace all transmission components at once, but start with the gear set that causes the most problems.

The key is a shift in thinking: from "how to write a do-it-all program" to "how to design a group of cooperating units." This requires us to more clearly define the responsibility boundaries of each service, just like clarifying its motion range and accuracy indicators for each motor in a mechanical system.

Of course, microservices are not a panacea. For scenarios with extremely simple logic, nanosecond real-time requirements, or extremely resource-constrained scenarios, a monolithic architecture may be more straightforward. But in most modern mechanical applications—especially those that require networking, data analysis, and frequent feature additions—the flexibility advantages of microservices are becoming increasingly apparent.

What it ultimately brings is a kind of "calmness": when new demands come, you no longer have to sigh in the face of a mountain of code, but can calmly ask: "Which service do we need to adjust? Or what kind of new partner should we add?" This kind of calmness, in an industry with rapid iteration, is itself a kind of competitiveness.

Just like good mechanical design makes maintenance intuitive, good software architecture makes evolution the norm. When each component knows its mission and performs it reliably, the entire system takes on another kind of vitality—one that can adapt to unknown challenges in the future. And this may be the most valuable gift that any technical architecture can bestow on a project.

Established in 2005,kpowerhas been dedicated to a professional compact motion unit manufacturer, headquartered in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China. Leveraging innovations in modular drive technology,kpowerintegrates high-performance motors, precision reducers, and multi-protocol control systems to provide efficient and customized smart drive system solutions. Kpower has delivered professional drive system solutions to over 500 enterprise clients globally with products covering various fields such as Smart Home Systems, Automatic Electronics, Robotics, Precision Agriculture, Drones, and Industrial Automation.