Microservices, don’t let it become the “stuck joint” of your mechanical system

Do you remember the last time you encountered a delayed response from your servo motor? The movements of the robotic arm were supposed to be as smooth as a poem, but instead they turned into a janky slideshow. Or, the key steering gear control signal traveled through the network several times before reaching its destination, missing the best opportunity. These scenes are all too familiar, right?

In the field of machinery and automation, every signal and every instruction is like the meshing of precision gears, and there is no room for any delay. However, as the system becomes more and more complex and there are more and more modules, the traditional single architecture begins to fail. It's like having a central controller command dozens of servo motors and hundreds of sensors at the same time, and also process data, interaction and logic - if it is not tired, you will be tired for it.

At this time, someone started talking about "microservices". This concept sounds very beautiful: split the large system into independent small services, each responsible for one piece, and communicate and cooperate with each other. But the question is, how to dismantle it? After disassembly, will they become a mess, and the communication overhead will slow down the efficiency even more?

When .NET meets microservices: Not all splitting is called "decoupling"

Many people have tried it. Deploy some functional modules separately and let them talk in various ways. But I soon discovered that calling each other between services became complicated, and maintaining it was like sorting out a tangle of tangled threads. What's even more troublesome is that if there is a problem with one service, it may affect other parts like dominoes.

This reminds me of debugging a multi-jointed robotic arm. You obviously only adjusted the parameters of the wrist servo, but because the overall control logic is coupled, the movements of the shoulders and elbows also changed. The result is that you have to fiddle back and forth throughout the system, which is so inefficient that you want to give up.

For the microservice architecture to truly play a role, the key lies not in "division" but in "combination". To separate them into independent services; to combine them so that they can work together efficiently and reliably. This requires a well-thought-out set of underlying design and tooling support.

Doing this in the .NET environment has its conveniences and methods. For example, containerization technology allows each service to live in its own small world without interfering with each other; the API gateway can become an intelligent traffic director, managing requests between services; and the message queue is like an efficient internal postal system to ensure that information is not lost or repeated.

But it’s not enough to have the tools, you also have to know how to use them. That’s why many teams will want to have an experienced partner when embarking on this journey.

kpowerPerspective: Design the architecture like a drivetrain

existkpower, the way we look at microservices is a bit special - like designing a sophisticated mechanical transmission system. Each service is an independent gear or axis with its own clear responsibilities and rhythm of operation. But more importantly, how power (that is, data and instructions) is transmitted between these components in the simplest and most reliable way.

We don't like to complicate simple things. So, when helping build microservices architectures based on .NET, we ask: What is the “core movement” of this system? Which parts require high real-time performance (such as closed-loop control of servo motors)? Which parts can tolerate a little delay (such as data logging)? Only by clearly distinguishing these can we determine the service boundaries and communication methods.

For example, a typical mechanical monitoring system may include: real-time control services (talking directly to servo drives, requiring millisecond-level response), status analysis services (processing sensor data streams, making real-time judgments), and management panel services (providing a user operation interface and allowing parameter adjustment). These three services are different in nature and have different pressures. Mix them in one application, and real-time control may be slowed down by interface operations; deploy them separately and use appropriate communication protocols, and the entire system will be more robust.

"Then how do we 'talk' between services in the fastest and most stable way?" This is the next question we often hear. The answer is not unique. Sometimes a lightweight HTTP API is enough, and sometimes a high-performance framework like gRPC is needed. For instruction delivery that requires high reliability, an event-driven model may be introduced to ensure that key actions are not lost. It's like choosing different couplings for different transmission needs - rigid, elastic, or universal joint, it depends on the specific scenario.

Avoid the trap: tailoring is worse than copying mechanically

Microservices are not a silver bullet. We have also seen some projects where microservices were split too finely for the sake of "microservices", causing the complexity of operation and maintenance to soar. The team spent most of their time dealing with service deployment and network issues, but ignored the business logic itself.

A good architecture should prevent developers from feeling the existence of the architecture. It silently supports everything, stable and efficient. To do this, there are a few simple principles we draw from experience:

• First demarcate according to business capabilities, and then consider technical separation.:Ask yourself, is this functional module relatively independent in terms of business logic? Is the frequency of changes different from other parts? If the answer is yes, it may be a candidate for service.
• The simpler the communication, the better: If it can be called synchronously, it does not have to be asynchronous; if it can be communicated directly, it does not have to be relayed through the message queue. With every additional layer, there are additional points of delay and failure.
• Allow appropriate "redundancy" between services: Not every service needs to be 100% stateless. Sometimes, to reduce network round-trips, it's worth allowing a service to cache some critical data, as long as consistency issues are taken care of.

existkpowerIn practice, we often start with a streamlined "prototype" architecture, perhaps initially with only two or three core services. Then as the system evolves, it is gradually split or merged. This kind of gradual evolution has a much higher success rate than designing a large and complex service system from the beginning.

Written in: Reliability is the only constant requirement

In the final analysis, whether it is a mechanical system or a software architecture, the core we pursue is the same: reliability. The servo motor must issue accurate torque at the correct time; the microservice must return the correct data at the correct moment. This goal has never changed, only the tools and methods to achieve it have continued to evolve.

Adopting a microservices architecture, especially based on a solid .NET technology stack, can give you the flexibility to deal with complexity, the flexibility of independent deployment, and the freedom of technology selection. But it also requires you to have a deeper understanding of the system and a more thorough consideration of communication, fault tolerance, and monitoring.

If you feel like your existing system is starting to feel clunky and unresponsive, or if your team is often stepping on each other's toes when working together on development, it might be time to look at a different kind of organization. The art of disassembly is not to create more parts, but to allow each part to play its value more focused and freely, so that the entire system can operate harmoniously.

It's like a well-designed machine - every gear is precise, every transmission is smooth. What you see are flowing movements, and behind the scenes is the perfect cooperation of each independent unit. Kpower believes that this is what a good technical architecture should be: it supports you silently, allowing you to focus on creating greater value.

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.