disadvantages of microservice architecture

That old system is broken again, and you have to admit, sometimes things just don't happen.

On Friday afternoon, the production line suddenly stopped. Not because of equipment failure, but because the order processing module and the inventory management module "quarreled" - one said that the material was sufficient, and the other showed that it was out of stock. It took engineers three hours to figure out that it turned out that the data synchronization between the two microservices was delayed. Machines are idling, orders are backlogged, and everyone is watching the clock tick.

Have you ever encountered such a moment? The microservice architecture sounds quite modern. It is neatly split, each service is deployed independently and can be flexibly expanded. But on the real factory floor, things are often not so pretty.

Think about it: In order to decouple, you split the original whole into a dozen or even dozens of small services. They communicate via the Internet. What is a network? It is a line that occasionally jitters and a channel that may be congested. If a service responds a few hundred milliseconds slower, the chain reaction could stall the entire process. Not to mention data consistency - each service has its own database, and when you want to see a complete view from raw materials to shipment, the data has to be pieced together like a puzzle. Sometimes the puzzle pieces don't fit.

There are also tests. In the past, it was enough to test a complete application process, but now? You have to simulate interactions between dozens of services. The same goes for deployment. Version updates are like a precise formation flight. If a service upgrade is incompatible, the entire formation may be messed up.

"So, are we stuck here? Just living with these complexities?"

Of course not. Problems exist to be solved.

The key is how we think about "splitting". There’s nothing wrong with the core concepts of microservices—focus, autonomy, and elasticity. However, many implementation processes have fallen into the trap of dismantling for the sake of dismantling. The real solution may not be to add more tools or more complex monitoring, but to return to the essence of the matter: What exactly do you want this system to do for you?

In the world of machinery and automation, we value what is reliable, direct, and powerful. A servo motor receives instructions, executes them accurately, and responds quickly. A steering gear works stably and faithfully within a set angle range. They do not engage in redundant communications and do not rely on unstable external networks. They do their best within the scope of their responsibilities.

This gives us a very different analogy perspective: maybe your software architecture also needs some of this "mechatronics" thinking. Instead of infinitely subdividing, we should find those parts that really need to be independent and can be independent based on functional boundaries and frequency of changes, and turn them into modules that are as reliable as servo units and have clear interfaces. The rest, keep tight cohesion and reduce unnecessary remote call overhead.

It's like designing a precision robotic arm. You will not make every wire of the control circuit, sensor feedback, and power output a pluggable remote service. You will integrate the highly interrelated parts that require millisecond-level collaboration into a solid local controller, and only expose the parts that clearly need to interact with external systems and change at different paces through well-defined interfaces.

What difference can this make?

Complexity is trapped where it belongs. Core, high-frequency interactions are completed locally, as fast as lightning, and as stable as a rock. Only cross-domain, low-frequency collaboration takes place online. The scope of the problem is smaller and troubleshooting is easier.

The data has an owner. The data of key processes maintains strong consistency within its "functional unit". What is provided externally is a deterministic status query interface, rather than a bunch of original logs that need to be spliced ​​afterwards.

Furthermore, testing and deployment become practical. Core modules can be rigorously integrated tested like a circuit board. True independent microservices have clear boundaries and single responsibilities, so the complexity of testing and deployment is also greatly reduced.

Sounds a bit idealistic? In fact, it is more pragmatic. It requires us to divide services not from the technical perspective of "whether they can be separated", but from the business level of "should they be separated". Every time you split, you have to answer: Do these two parts really change at different speeds? Is the collaboration between them stable enough to tolerate the overhead and risks of the network?

We often see such changes in Kpower's customer cases. An equipment manufacturer that was previously slowed down by network delays between microservices reorganized their "motion control logic" and "order status logic." The former has extremely high real-time requirements and is integrated into a solid core; the latter needs to talk to the upper-level ERP and is designed as an independent service. The result? The production line returned to a smooth rhythm, as if it had been replaced with a servo system that responded more accurately.

So, when you’re thinking about architecture, ask yourself a few simple questions:

• Is this service split to solve a real, frequent change problem, or to keep up with a certain technology trend?
• Is every call between the two services worth the uncertainty that the network can bring?
• If you put them together, will it really create unmanageable chaos?

The answer is often more straightforward than you think. A good architecture should not make people feel its existence. It is like a well-oiled machine. You can only see its stable power output, and you will not always worry that a certain screw will loosen.

It should not be a shackles of thought, but an empowerment of business. Starting from real pain points, and using thinking similar to designing precision machinery to examine the boundaries of coupling and separation, you may find that the road to reliability, efficiency, and simplicity has always been there.

Established in 2005, Kpower has 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.