Microservices have been celebrated as the ultimate architecture for scalability and independence.
They promise faster delivery, team autonomy, and effortless scaling.
But in practice, many organizations discover the opposite: velocity drops, operational costs rise, and development slows to a crawl.
The problem isn’t the concept of microservices itself — it’s when teams adopt them too early or without discipline.
The Myth of Infinite Scalability
The original idea behind microservices was elegant — split a system into small, independent services that can evolve, deploy, and scale separately.
In theory, this allows teams to move faster and avoid coordination overhead.
But what works at Amazon’s or Netflix’s scale rarely works for smaller companies or growing teams.
Microservices shift complexity from code to infrastructure.
Instead of one codebase to manage, you now have dozens — each with its own deployments, monitoring, database migrations, authentication logic, and network failures.
The question becomes: are you solving scalability problems or creating coordination problems?
The Real Cost of Microservices
- Operational Overhead
Each microservice needs:
Its own CI/CD pipeline
Monitoring and alerting configuration
Cloud infrastructure (ECS, Lambda, databases, networking)
Deployment strategies and rollback mechanisms
This adds up quickly. A team of five engineers can easily spend more time maintaining pipelines and debugging network issues than building new features.
- Distributed Debugging
In a monolith, a stack trace tells you exactly what happened.
In a microservices ecosystem, a single user request may traverse 10 different services, queues, and asynchronous events.
Without robust distributed tracing, debugging becomes guesswork.
Observability tools like OpenTelemetry, X-Ray, or Datadog help — but they add even more layers of setup and maintenance.
- Data Fragmentation
Every service owning its own database sounds great — until you need a consistent view of data across the system.
Cross-service joins become API calls. Reporting becomes a data engineering challenge.
Many teams end up creating “reporting microservices” just to re-aggregate data they once had in a single table.
- Latency and Reliability
More network hops mean more failure points.
Retries, circuit breakers, and backpressure become mandatory.
Even if each service is “99.9%” reliable, the end-to-end success rate across 20 services might drop below 98%.
The more you distribute your system, the more you must invest in resilience patterns — often reinventing solutions that a single, well-structured monolith could handle naturally.
When Microservices Make Sense
Microservices aren’t bad — they’re just expensive.
They make sense when:
Teams are large enough to maintain independent services.
Domains are clearly defined and stable.
You already have mature DevOps and observability practices.
You’re solving scale or organizational bottlenecks, not creating them.
At that point, the cost is justified.
But adopting microservices before reaching that level of maturity usually reduces delivery speed rather than increasing it.
The Case for Modular Monoliths
A modular monolith often offers the best of both worlds:
One deployable unit, one CI/CD pipeline.
Clear domain separation through internal modules.
Shared logging, authentication, and configuration.
Easy refactoring — extract modules into services only when necessary.
Instead of starting with microservices and struggling to keep them coordinated, you can start modular — and split by evolution, not by design fantasy.
This approach lets architecture grow naturally, in response to real scaling demands rather than imagined ones.
Lessons Learned
Complexity always exists — you can’t remove it, only choose where to put it.
Microservices move it from the codebase into infrastructure and operations.
Small teams need focus, not fragmentation.
Each new service increases cognitive load and reduces collaboration efficiency.
Velocity is not the number of services deployed — it’s how quickly a team can deliver business value.
Start with clarity, not distribution.
Build modular systems first, then split them when the boundaries are clear and justified.
Conclusion
Microservices are powerful, but power without purpose is waste.
They are not a productivity shortcut — they are a trade-off that must be earned through maturity and discipline.
If your system doesn’t yet demand that level of distribution, a well-architected modular monolith will take you further, faster, and with far fewer moving parts.
The goal of architecture is not to look modern — it’s to enable teams to deliver value consistently and confidently.
And sometimes, the fastest way to move forward is to simplify, not split.
Top comments (0)