monolith vs microservices

Taming the Beast: When Your Machine’s Brain Gets Too Big

Picture this: you design a complex device, perhaps a precision-assembled robotic arm, or a multi-jointed display. Everything was perfect at first. A master control brain (let's call it the "monolith" system) directed all the servo motors and servos to dance, and the movements were as smooth as a poem.

But then, you want to add a new feature. Maybe let the end effector do an additional rotation detection, or add a visual feedback link. You open the "monolith" code and find that you need to move one of the links, just like taking out the stitches and re-knitting a sweater that has already been knitted - pulling one hair affects the whole body. Change one place, and dozens of other seemingly unrelated modules start reporting errors. The test became nightmarishly long, and for a small update, the entire machine had to stop and "reboot the brain." This isn't just a software problem, it makes hardware debugging hamstrung. Have you ever had this experience?

These are the growing pains that many integrated systems face. That once reliable "monolith" became a behemoth that was difficult to maintain as its functionality expanded. It becomes slower and more fragile, and innovation feels like a minefield.

Where is the way out?

Someone started talking about a different way of thinking: microservices. Don’t be intimidated by this word, it’s actually very vivid. Instead of having one giant brain controlling everything, tasks can be delegated to a group of small brains working together. For example, an independent "cerebellum" specializes in processing the motion curve of the high-precision servo motor, and the other is responsible for receiving signals from external sensors. They talk through a clear protocol, each focusing on each other without interfering with each other.

This sounds ideal, but is it suitable for your hardware project? Could it be complicating a simple problem?

Let’s talk about the actual situation. For example, in one of your devices,kpowerThe servo motor is responsible for the core positioning, which requires fast response and precise control. In the "monolith", its control code may be mixed with logging and user interface code. Once motion logic is required, you have to face a bunch of irrelevant code. Under the microservice architecture, motor control becomes an independent service unit. You can adjust its controls individually, conduct stress tests, or even replace and upgrade it. As long as its "interface" for external communication remains unchanged, other parts (such as the module responsible for status display) will not perceive the change at all, and the device will run as usual.

This brings several tangible benefits:

• Flexible changes: Like replacing a modular part on a machine without having to shut down for an overhaul. You can quickly iterate on a specific feature.
• local solidity: A problem with one service unit (such as a sensor data processing unit) will not cause the entire system to collapse. Other parts, such as core motor control, may still continue to work.
• technical freedom: Choose the right tool for different tasks. One efficient language can be used to handle real-time motion logic, while another can be used for the data analysis part. This is difficult to achieve in "The Rock".

Of course, this is not a silver bullet. If the system itself is very simple, with only two or three fixed actions, introducing microservices is like using a Swiss Army knife to cut a piece of bread - killing a chicken with a bull's knife. It increases the initial complexity of the design and requires you to think about how services communicate with each other.

So, how to choose?

You can ask yourself a few questions: Will my project frequently add or remove features in the future? Do different hardware modules (such as motors, sensors, actuators) have strong independence? Is a separate upgrade to one part of the system a benefit I'm looking for?

If your answer is "yes", then exploring a microservice-based architecture may be an attempt to liberate productivity. It allows the architecture of the software to better match the modular nature of the hardware. controlkpowerThe core code of the servo motor can become a dedicated and powerful independent service, which can ensure the accuracy and stability of motion control no matter how the external system is expanded.

Ultimately, the goal is not to chase technology trends, but to find the “nervous system” that works best for your “machine body.” Let the software structure be like a precise mechanical design, with clear modules, easy maintenance, and easy expansion. When the system's mind becomes clear and agile, the hardware creation in your hands can truly unleash its full potential and creativity.

From a hard-to-carve "monolith" to a collaborative symphony "orchestra", this transformation is not only about code, but also the way of thinking about building reliable and flexible mechanical systems. Maybe you can start reimagining your next project here.

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, Kpower integrates 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.