If you've spent any time around backend engineers in the last decade, you've heard the word microservices thrown around. Sometimes reverently, sometimes like a curse. It's one of those terms that gets used so loosely you start to wonder if anyone actually agrees on what it means.
So let's pin it down properly, talk about why people bother, and then be honest about the parts nobody puts on the conference slides.
The actual definition
A microservice architecture is an architectural pattern that organizes an application into a collection of loosely coupled, fine-grained services that communicate through lightweight protocols [Source 1]. That's it. That's the core idea.
Notice what's in that sentence:
Write for sansxel
Want your work in the Learn library? Apply for a hardlocked byline.
Loosely coupled. Services don't reach into each other's guts. They talk over a wire.
Fine-grained. Each service does one thing, or at least one bounded thing, rather than trying to be the entire application.
Lightweight protocols. HTTP, gRPC, message queues. Not giant enterprise service buses with XML schemas the size of a phone book.
The alternative, and the thing microservices are usually compared against, is a monolith: one big application where everything lives in the same codebase, the same process, and usually the same database. Monolithic systems tend to grow over time, drift away from their intended architecture, and become risky and expensive to evolve [Source 5]. That drift is the pain point microservices are trying to solve.
Why anyone bothers
The pitch is straightforward. When your application is split into small independent services, teams can develop, deploy, and scale those services independently [Source 1]. That independence is the whole point. It's not about the services being small for the sake of being small. It's about being able to ship changes to the billing service without coordinating a release with the team that owns search.
Three things you actually get out of it [Source 1]:
Modularity. Each service has a clear boundary, so changes stay local.
Scalability. You scale the services that need it. If your image-processing endpoint is the bottleneck, you spin up more of those, not more of the entire app.
Adaptability. Different services can use different tech. Your data pipeline can be in Python while your low-latency API is in Go, and nobody has to argue about it in a single repo.
The deployment story is what hooks most teams. In a monolith, every change, no matter how small, means redeploying the whole thing. In a microservice setup, the team that owns the user-profile service ships when they're ready. The team that owns notifications ships when they're ready. Nobody waits on a release train.
What a service actually looks like
The idea behind microservices is to develop a single large, complex application as a suite of small, cohesive, independent services [Source 5]. "Cohesive" is doing a lot of work in that sentence. A good microservice has a single, clear responsibility. Think payments, inventory, auth, search. Not utilities or helpers or miscellaneous-business-logic.
A rough mental model:
[ client ]
|
v
[ api gateway ]
/ | \
v v v
[users][orders][inventory]
| | |
[db1] [db2] [db3]
Each service owns its data. Each service exposes an API. They talk over the network. The gateway routes incoming traffic. That's the shape, more or less.
The "each service owns its data" part is the one people screw up most often, and we'll come back to it.
Getting there from a monolith
Most teams don't start with microservices. They start with a monolith that worked fine for a few years and is now slow to change, scary to deploy, and impossible to onboard new engineers into. So they decide to migrate.
This is harder than it looks. Many companies migrate without prior experience, mainly learning how to do it from books or practitioners' blogs, and end up learning by doing [Source 4]. The migration itself is a research topic. There's published work on techniques for identifying microservice candidates from existing monoliths, including evaluations on real systems, like one approach that successfully identified candidates in a 750 KLOC banking system [Source 5]. That scale should tell you something: this isn't a weekend refactor.
The usual approach is incremental. You don't rewrite the monolith. You carve pieces off it. Find a bounded slice of functionality, lift it out, give it its own service and its own data, and route traffic to the new service. Then do the next piece. The monolith shrinks over time. Sometimes it never fully disappears, and that's fine.
The part the conference talks gloss over
Here's where I have to be a buzzkill. Microservices introduce additional complexity, particularly in managing distributed systems and inter-service communication, which makes the initial implementation more challenging than a monolithic architecture [Source 1].
Read that twice. The thing you're trading for independent deployment and scaling is distributed systems complexity. And distributed systems are hard in ways that aren't obvious until you're knee-deep in them.
Some of what you sign up for:
Network failures are now business logic. A function call that used to be a method invocation is now an HTTP request that can time out, return a 500, or just hang.
Debugging gets weird. A single user request might touch eight services. Tracing it requires real tooling.
Data consistency is your problem now. With each service owning its own database, you can't just wrap things in a transaction. Eventual consistency, sagas, and reconciliation jobs become part of your vocabulary.
Deployment infrastructure balloons. Container orchestration, service discovery, observability, secrets management. None of that is optional anymore.
And then there are the anti-patterns. There's a whole taxonomy of them, built from interviews with practitioners over multiple years, cataloging twenty common microservice anti-patterns that teams keep falling into [Source 4]. The fact that someone could write a taxonomy of twenty distinct ways to mess this up should tell you that the failure modes are real and well-documented.
A few of the ones you'll see in the wild:
The distributed monolith. You split the code into services, but they're so tightly coupled that you can't deploy any of them independently. You got all the costs of microservices and none of the benefits.
Shared databases. Multiple services reading and writing the same tables. Now schema changes require coordination across teams, which was the whole thing you were trying to avoid.
Chatty services. A single user request fans out into fifty internal calls. Latency adds up. Failure modes multiply.
When it's worth it
So when should you actually do this? Honest answer: later than you think.
If you have one team, one product, and a codebase you can hold in your head, a monolith is fine. It's probably better than fine. You can always split it later, and the techniques for doing that exist [Source 5].
Microservices start to pay off when:
You have multiple teams who keep stepping on each other's deploys.
Different parts of your system have wildly different scaling needs.
You want to use different languages or runtimes for different problems.
Your monolith has genuinely become too large and tangled to evolve safely.
If none of those apply, you're paying the complexity tax for benefits you don't need.
A quick note on the name
One small thing worth mentioning, because I've seen people get confused by search results. "Microservice" is unrelated to "miniseries" (a TV program told in a limited number of episodes [Source 2]) or "micro-series" (very short advertiser-sponsored episodic content, often two to three minutes long [Source 3]). Different worlds. If you're searching for architecture content and end up reading about television, you took a wrong turn.
The takeaway
A microservice architecture is a way of building applications as a collection of small, independent, loosely coupled services that communicate over lightweight protocols [Source 1]. The wins are real: independent deployment, targeted scaling, team autonomy. The costs are also real, and they're mostly the costs of running a distributed system, which include everything from network reliability to data consistency to a much heavier operational footprint [Source 1].
The pattern isn't a silver bullet, and it isn't a mistake. It's a tradeoff. You're swapping one kind of complexity (a big tangled codebase) for another (a fleet of small services that have to coordinate). Whether that trade is worth it depends entirely on the size of your team, the shape of your product, and how much pain the monolith is actually causing you.
If you're considering the move, do it incrementally, learn from the well-documented anti-patterns instead of rediscovering them [Source 4], and take seriously the research on how to identify good service boundaries [Source 5]. The teams who succeed with microservices aren't the ones who adopted them earliest. They're the ones who understood what they were signing up for.
