[BoorishBears]

A monolith doesn't force a single database.

A monolith doesn't force a single process. IPC is still simpler and cheaper than network calls.

A monolith doesn't force never having an external service for a specialized use case, or FFI.

[jabradoodle]

> IPC is still simpler and cheaper than network calls.

I specifically called out the extra complexity of network calls in microservices, not sure if you read the full comment.

> A monolith doesn't force a single process

I'm not convinced; if my small/specific code has it's own process, I would say it's a microservice. Sure, we can have replicas for redundancy, that doesn't mean I won't have reliability issues when my process is crashed.

> A monolith doesn't force a single database.

> A monolith doesn't force never having an external service for a specialized use case, or FFI

True, sadly it doesn't usually work this way. People take the path of least resistance.

Also once you add multiple DBs you start to get into eventual consistency; which is one of the harder parts of microservices.

[BoorishBears]

> I specifically called out the extra complexity of network calls in microservices, not sure if you read the full comment.

Calling out networking doesn't preclude me from mentioning IPC. IPC isn't limited to network calls, it can be as simple as shared memory and hit millions of OPS: github.com/OpenHFT/Chronicle-Map

> I'm not convinced; if my small/specific code has its own process, I would say it's a microservice.

And you'd be wrong. A core tenant of microservices is being able to individually deploy your microservices. If I spin up a new process for some high risk, highly memory intensive process I've introduced a fraction of the operational complexity of a seperate server and retained the core value proposition of reducing its blast radius if things go south.

Of course again, if you're having so much trouble handle writing software that's reliable that you being to consider isolating instability as a top benefit from your IPC setup instead of a tiny value add... it might be a sign you're not ready for microservices.

_

> True, sadly it doesn't usually work this way. People take the path of least resistance.

> Also once you add multiple DBs you start to get into eventual consistency; which is one of the harder parts of microservices.

You're making my point: If you don't have the engineering chops as a team to make a robust monolith, you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices.

Eventual consistency is not inherent to having multiple databases. If I have an oft changing ephemeral set of data that only affects one feature and it's creating an impedance mismatch with our main datastore, nothing is stopping us from pulling in Redis for all the queries we were previously sending to Postgres, and as far as anything relying on that feature is concerned, nothing at all changed.

With even half decent engineering, Redis going down doesn't break any differently than it would have for a microservice: you define the same error boundaries as before and the failure case ends up the same.

I mean seriously, if your team can't handle having a second data store, imagine the bedlam when you're trying to handle multiple languages across multiple data sources in a non-centralized manner?

_

Microservices are a pattern for companies where a "microservice" gets the kind of development and devops support that would justify spinning off a new mid-sized enterprise.

When you're Netflix your `api/movies/[movieId]/subtitles` endpoint is serving the kind of traffic most companies will never see in their lifetime and needs optimizations that maybe 100 companies in the world will ever need.

For the rest of us EC2 has 224C/488T CPU 24,000 GB RAM machines with 38 GBPs I/O bandwidth. If your business ever scales so far that you outgrow that, throw some of that X Billion dollar valuation money at the problem and build your microservices.

[jabradoodle]

> Calling out networking doesn't preclude me from mentioning IPC.

You made the same point I made as though it was in contradiction to what I said. Adding a network call adds complexity, yes.

> A core tenant of microservices is being able to individually deploy your microservices.

And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?

> You're making my point: If you don't have the engineering chops as a team to make a robust monolith, you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices.

Firstly, you never made that point. Also, I never argued against it, in fact I agree completely.

> Microservices are a pattern for companies where a "microservice" gets the kind of development and devops support that would justify spinning off a new mid-sized enterprise.

Disagree, netflix has >1000 microservices.

[BoorishBears]

Ah sorry, I guess replying to people supporting microservices by calling out the gaps in technical knowledge they're using to justify microservices is not the same as saying ..."you definitely don't have the skills and resources to start looking at microservices"

Ah, wait it is.

> And why would you not want this to be independently deployable?

Because FAANG has more engineers devoted to managing deployment/observability/version skew/DX/scaling/security than you have engineers. Simplifying your needs in those realms helps you greatly.

And to top that off, it 100% can be independently deployable if it's a big enough separate concern: that's just SOA without the 90's XML/SOAP/RPC spin that was ESB: https://aws.amazon.com/compare/the-difference-between-soa-mi...

_

> Disagree, netflix has >1000 microservices.

That says exactly nothing. At Netflix scale their most random "trivial" endpoints are easily doing scale that entire SMEs won't ever deal with.

When FAANG is your case study in any technical discussion in a public forum, you're default wrong. I work at an AV company, I'm not about to start telling people the insane architecture we need to support ingesting petabytes of data is something that anyone else needs.

Any useful technical discussion needs to be grounded in what the 99% need, and microservices are not it.

[jabradoodle]

> Ah sorry, I guess replying to people supporting microservices

Again, at no point did I make an argument for microservices.

> that's just SOA

Absolutely not, from your own reference:

> Each service provides a business capability.

Spinning a high memory task off into it's own process is not a business capability. Microservices are more granluar than SOA services, your describing a microservice.

> That says exactly nothing. At Netflix scale their most random "trivial" endpoints are easily doing scale that entire SMEs won't ever deal with.

You said microservices are for when a microservice would have the support equivelant to a medium enterprise, this is not true even at netflix scale. They absolutely have services owned by very small teams, or else they wouldn't have more than 1000.

> When FAANG is your case study in any technical discussion in a public forum, you're default wrong.

Well who do we use as a case study on microservices then?

> Any useful technical discussion needs...

A technical discussion requires nuance, not turning into a black and white one side versus the other.

Yes, you can have multiple DBs in a monolith, but you tend not to. In microservices you are basically forced to.

It's a crude and expensive way to force modularisation. However, that is still what it often achieves, it gives you infra that you can keep other people away from and lets you be in charge.