20 ms·

"Just a sign of weak tooling." Why does technical overhead take a backseat whenever a microservices vs monolith discussion comes up? Yes, in a perfect world e

"Just a sign of weak tooling." Why does technical overhead take a backseat whenever a microservices vs monolith discussion comes up? Yes, in a perfect world every org would have sufficient time and engineering resources to implement microservices for better scalability and code quality. In the real world, setting up and maintaining microservices has huge technical overhead, I'd estimate double that of the equivalent monolithic architecture. If your company isn't flush with cash and the product you're building will never need massive scaling then it makes no sense to use microservices, at least from a business perspective.

nawitus 10y ago
"Why does technical overhead take a backseat whenever a microservices vs monolith discussion comes up?" I don't think it does, but that's kind of off topic. "In the real world, setting up and maintaining microservices has huge technical overhead, I'd estimate double that of the equivalent monolithic architecture." I agree.
- sbov 10y ago
  If two different solutions don't share the same "off topic overhead", they aren't off topic.
vojant 10y ago
There are many business reasons to use micro-services not only technical ones. In our org we could hire developers fast as we can use multiple programming languages (we have few approved stacks, as micro-services do not share code base). It allows us split out teams in to small agile units. That can e.g. deploy independently. Getting new developers on-board take less time as they work on few small services and they do not need to be aware of the whole code base (at the begin) Yes I agree there is technical overhead, and proper CI&CD servers are required, docker or e.g. vagrant is a must with micro-services. But including all the benefits I wouldn't say that we loses 2x more time than having monolithic architecture.

nawitus 10y ago

"Why does technical overhead take a backseat whenever a microservices vs monolith discussion comes up?" I don't think it does, but that's kind of off topic. "In the real world, setting up and maintaining microservices has huge technical overhead, I'd estimate double that of the equivalent monolithic architecture." I agree.

sbov 10y ago
If two different solutions don't share the same "off topic overhead", they aren't off topic.

vojant 10y ago

There are many business reasons to use micro-services not only technical ones. In our org we could hire developers fast as we can use multiple programming languages (we have few approved stacks, as micro-services do not share code base). It allows us split out teams in to small agile units. That can e.g. deploy independently. Getting new developers on-board take less time as they work on few small services and they do not need to be aware of the whole code base (at the begin) Yes I agree there is technical overhead, and proper CI&CD servers are required, docker or e.g. vagrant is a must with micro-services. But including all the benefits I wouldn't say that we loses 2x more time than having monolithic architecture.