In 2021, 85 percent of respondents to the Statista survey from large organizations with 5,000 or more employees said they are currently using microservices. This suggests that larger organizations may be more likely to benefit from and require the use of microservices in their operations. But is it really that simple?
On the topic of monolithic vs. microservices, you may be asking yourself: should we design first or move as needed?
Of course, the best option is to define the software architecture during the design phase. Before development begins, you need to know the end result: a single unit or a set of elements divided by function.
In practice, it is more often necessary to switch from monolith to microservices architecture already in the process of software implementation or operation when the product is developed for one purpose and target audience. Then you can adapt it for another group of users and add new features. At the same time, new technologies must be introduced, often using different programming languages.
Refining and modernizing a new product and combining old and new technologies may be necessary. In this case, using the old product as one service and its addition as another is easier.
Interestingly, according to the Gartner report, nearly 74% of organizations are currently using microservices architecture. And 23% of executive organizations aren't yet, but plan to. Many organizations (survey respondents) manage fewer than 100 microservices - and are satisfied with that number.
In this article, we'll analyze the two very different architectures and determine when to stay with monolithic and when to move to microservices.
Monolithic architecture is an approach to software design in which all application components are tightly coupled and "packaged" into a single entity. All functionality is integrated into a single code base in such an architecture.
Here are some key characteristics of monolithic architecture:
Despite these features, a monolithic architecture may be a good choice for simple applications or applications with a relatively stable set of requirements. However, for more complex applications or applications that require frequent updates and changes, a microservices architecture may be a better option.
Monoliths tend to be much easier to develop and maintain because everything is in a single code base. And because everything runs in a single process, it's easier to trace problems by walking through the code. There is no need for distributed tracing across service boundaries.
A monolithic architecture typically performs better because there is no overhead interprocess communication, and functions can call each other directly without network latency.
As a separate point, we would like to mention the ease of deployment and lack of operational complexity. Since the code base is not broken into separate services, deployment is usually simplified because only one package must be processed. A monolith can speed development for small and simple applications by eliminating service boundaries and integration complexity.
The monolithic architecture allows a cross-functional team to own and be accountable for the entire code base. It also clarifies management processes.
As a result, monoliths provide simplicity, ease of development, and ease of use for small applications. Of course, the monolith architecture still has drawbacks in terms of scalability and tight coupling.
In addition to the scalability issues of a monolithic architecture, the owner of such a project may face a number of other challenges.
These issues can make a monolithic architecture a poor choice for large or complex applications or for applications that require frequent updates and changes. In these cases, a microservices architecture may be a better option.
The ideal solution for large-scale projects. Impeccable protection, high performance and flexible settings.
Microservices architecture in development is an application consisting of a set of small, independent services that communicate with each other over a network. Each service is responsible for a specific task or function and can be developed, deployed, and scaled independently of other services.
Microservices architecture can be defined by the following characteristics:
Microservices architecture is a good choice for complex applications that require frequent updates or for software that needs to scale to handle large numbers of users or large amounts of data.
Microservices architecture is characterized by a high degree of modularity and flexibility because each service is an independent unit that can be developed, deployed, and scaled independently.
Microservices architecture is also more fault tolerant than monolithic architecture. Fault isolation is a hallmark of microservices architecture because if one service fails or needs to be upgraded, other services are not affected.
Depending on the requirements, services can be developed in different programming languages and use different data stores. A flexible technology stack is the key to quick and effective implementation of microservices projects.
Resource efficiency is achieved through easy scalability: the infrastructure of hosting services can be independently scaled up or down according to demand.
Every architecture has its pitfalls, and microservices have certain drawbacks as well:
It also becomes clear that additional infrastructure needs are inevitable. Running multiple services requires managing additional infrastructure for networking, databases, caching, etc., which increases operating costs. In this case, the solution may be to rent servers that meet the project's requirements.
Monolithic applications typically consist of a client-side user interface, a database, and a server-side application. In a microservices architecture, however, each service performs a specific function and interacts with others through APIs rather than built-in programming language mechanisms.
The differences between monolithic and microservices architectures can be summarized in a few software development processes.
|
Criteria |
Monolithic architecture |
Microservices architecture |
|
Start of development |
It usually starts with creating a code base. Then, during the development process, new code modules are added to the base. |
It requires accurate planning before development begins. A consistent API design that defines which functions can work independently is necessary. |
|
Deployment |
The entire application is deployed at once. In a single environment, developers install the entire code base and dependencies for the application. |
Independent services can be deployed separately, adding some complexity. Microservices can be pre-containerized to isolate code. Continuous deployment is often used. |
|
Debugging |
In the same programming environment, the developer can identify bugs and study the system's behavior through code analysis. However, debugging can be difficult because of the tight coupling. |
You must analyze several loosely coupled services at once and coordinate testing and feedback among many team members working on different services. However, individual services are easier to isolate and debug. |
|
Modifications |
Changes to specific modules may require changes to the entire code base. Retesting and debugging may be required. |
Changes to microservice application can be made to specific services without requiring major changes. Continuous deployment allows frequent and small changes to be made without affecting system stability. |
|
Scalability |
If there are insufficient resources for one component of the system, the entire application must be scaled. This may lead to irrational resource use. |
Individual microservices can scale independently, enhancing different components of the overall system and supporting a distributed pattern of resource consumption. |
The actual implementation of monolithic or microservice architectures and the experience of different development teams can vary. Successful examples of different architectures can still be found today, but microservices are often chosen for their flexibility and ability to adapt to changing requirements.
Let's try to determine whether the advantages of microservices over monoliths always apply. When exactly is it worth making the switch?
Microservices should definitely be chosen here. Often, an application must be broken into its constituent parts simply because of its size; for example, when it cannot run completely on a single server.
Some parts of an application may require different server resources. For example, one part might require network speed, while another part might require processor processing power. Then it makes sense to break the application into services that reside on different types of dedicated or virtual private servers.
If you need to break down an application into components or small applications, you are better off using microservices. For example, putting Google Maps, Google Classroom, and Google Drive in “the same box” makes no sense.
It is possible to provide the required level of security within a monolith. However, in cases where data protection is a primary concern, microservices usually win out. For example, applications responsible for user authentication, payment data, and other critical elements in banking information systems should be strictly separated.
If one of the microservices fails, the other components continue to function normally—even within a monolith. This can be ensured by using fault-tolerant clusters or redundant backup servers. Renting a second server may be cheaper than changing the application structure.
It is easier to maintain separate microservices if a separate team is responsible for each service. If one person has to manage multiple services, using a monolith is easier and cheaper. It is especially difficult to organize support when microservices use different programming languages. In this case, a specialist needs to be familiar with the entire technology stack.
If splitting the code into separate libraries is impossible, the best option is to turn to microservices. Microservices will certainly win the race in terms of development time. It is much easier to divide the application into teams or executors and divide it into tasks. It is better to do all the work in stages when developing a monolith.
These criteria are generally enough to make a decision, but your project may have other reasons to move to microservices or stay with a monolithic architecture.
Get the most out of your budget with our affordable, efficient VPS solutions. Fast NVMe, 30+ countries, managed and unmanaged VPS.
The process of hosting microservices and creating a microservice architecture in general turns out to be much more convenient than using monoliths. Microservices can be located either on a dedicated server or on several servers. When the microservice is fully functional, cloud services can also be used.
This allows different microservice placement options to be clearly defined:
It is much more convenient to place an application's microservices on different servers if they are used by different categories of users, especially if their territorial location needs to be taken into account. This also increases the application's security level: if one server is attacked, the others will be able to function normally.
Monolithic architecture remains the optimal choice for simple applications or applications with a relatively stable set of requirements. It is also a good choice for applications that are not expected to scale to large numbers of users or large amounts of data.
If your project is on a monolith and your task is to provide better fault tolerance, moving to microservices is unnecessary. It is enough to turn to proven options - scaling server resources, using RAID, or creating a fault-tolerant cluster.
If the development team is new or has minimal experience, a monolith allows you to focus on the core application without the complexity of the services. In this case, you eliminate microservices' vulnerabilities and data consistency issues.
Monoliths also tend to have a faster development cycle, which is appropriate when deadlines are tight. When comparing monolithic to microservices, the latter require additional planning and communication for a cohesive process.
Sufficient hardware resources can also influence the choice of a monolithic architecture. If there is enough hardware to scale the monolith horizontally, there is less reason to split it into services.
When comparing monolithic vs. microservices, we can clearly see two different approaches to software design. The best choice for a particular application depends on the project's specific requirements and other factors that most often arise during the software development process.
A monolithic architecture is easier to design and implement, and for simple tasks, it can be more efficient and perform better than a microservices architecture. However, it is difficult to scale, modify, and adapt to changing requirements.
Although a microservices architecture is more difficult to design and implement, it is more scalable, flexible, and fault-tolerant. It is a good choice for complex applications that require frequent updates or work with large amounts of data.
It may be more beneficial for your project to stay with a monolithic architecture that meets some needs in the way your project is used to doing. For others, moving to microservices may open up new software possibilities.