A "microservice" solves scaling issues for huge companies. If you have 60 microservices, you should probably have 600 engineers (10 per) to deal with them. If you're completely underwater and have 10 services per engineer, you're 100% absolutely play-acting "web-scale" for an audience of really dumb managers/investors.

With proper devops tooling and a half decent design, even a junior engineer can manage several microservices without issues. Since microservices are about scaling people as much as they are about scaling tech, 10 people in one service is a lot to me in that world.

The best company I worked at had about 5-10 deployable per engineers on average and it worked really well. They were small, deployed almost instantly, dependencies were straightforward, etc.

Monoliths work fine too, it's just different tradeoffs.

I ended up getting into a few arguments at work with the over excited engineer in my last place. He wanted microservices. I said it was just going to add complexity. The app was already a mess, adding network calls rather than function calls wasn't going to help. We had a small teas - 3 backend devs, one of them doing mostly devops and two frontend.

It's not clear to me what you mean by dealing here. Do you mean developing? If so, I completely agree. If you mean deployments, a small number of engineers can manage hundreds of them easily.

It depends on how you do it. We have 5 engineers and around 50 services and it’s much easier for us to maintain that than it was when it was monolith with a couple of services on top.

Though to understand why this is, you would have to know just how poorly our monolith was designed. That’s sometimes the issue with monoliths though, they allow you to “cut corners” and suddenly you end up with this huge spiderweb mess of a database that nobody knows who pulls what from because everyone has connected some sort of thing to it and now your monolith isn’t really a monolith because of it. Which isn’t how a monolith is supposed to work, but is somehow always how it ends up working anyway.

I do agree though, that the “DevOps” space for “medium-non-software-development” IT departments in larger companies is just terrible. We ended up outsourcing it, sort of, so that our regular IT operations partner (the ones which also help with networking, storage, backups, security and so on) also handle the management part of our managed Kubernetes cluster. So that once something leaves the build pipeline, it’s theirs. Which was surprisingly cheap by the way.

I do get where you’re coming from of course. If we had wanted to do it ourselves, we’d likely need to write “infrastructure as code” that was twice the size of the actual services we deploy.

> designed. That’s sometimes the issue with monoliths though, they allow you to “cut corners”

I find this hard to relate to, the idea you have the discipline and culture to do microservices well if you can't do it with a monolith.

More likely is you migrate away from the monolith you never invested in fixing, and once you get to microservices you either call it a mistake and migrate back, or you have to eventually finally invest in fixing things.

Perhaps your microservice rewrite goes well because you now know your domain after building the monolith, that is another option.

With the microservice architecture it’s easier to lock things down. You can’t have someone outside of your team just give access to a dataset or similar because excel can’t get a connection directly into your DB. Which is an argument you could rightfully make for monoliths, except in my experience, someone always finds a sneaky way into the data on monoliths, but it’s too hard for them to do so with MicroServices.

If you gave me total control over everything, I’d probably build a couple of monoliths with some shared modules. But every time the data is centralised, it always somehow ends up being a total mess. With MicroServices you’ll still end up with a total mess in parts of the organisation, but at least it’ll be in something like PowerBI or even your datawarehouse and not directly in your master data.

Or to put it differently, for me MicroServices vs monoliths is all most completely an organisational question and not a technical one.

It's not like microservices don't also give you chances to mess your data up. It's hard to do transactions across boundaries, you have to deal with eventual consistency, sometimes there is no single source of truth.

I struggle to see how microservices fix this for people; having worked primarily with them for the past 6 years.

The thing with microservices is that shit doesn't have to infect everything. If someone in another team is clueless, they'll mess up their microservices but not anyone else's. If they are in a monolith, it's 50/50 based on how much clout they have (either they mess it up for everyone, or they get talked down and don't get to mess up their stuff either).

Unless it's a shared library, which is why good microservices architecture limit the shared surface as much as possible.

> it's 50/50 based on how much clout they have (either they mess it up for everyone, or they get talked down and don't get to mess up their stuff either

This still happens with microservices though; people can still make terrible architecture decisions and standup terrible services you depend on.

I have worked with a company that had around 8 developers and 30 'microservices'. They wanted the front end team (fully remote, overseas, different language, culture) to go micro front end. They are awesome at presentations and getting funded tho. A common theme in European startups.

A distributed monolith isn't based on how many services you have, a better question is, how many services do you need to redeploy/update to make a change.

Yes, by the time you get to thousands of services you hopefully have moved past the distributed monololith, if you built one.

>> That's not microservices, it's distributed monolith and it's the one model that doesn't work (but everyone seems to do)

I called ours a macrolith.