For years, backend teams have had to decide how to structure an app. A monolith puts the main parts of an application in one place. It ships as one unit.
This often feels easier at first, especially when the app is small, or one team owns most of it. But as the app grows, the limits show up. Updating one area may mean rebuilding and releasing the whole application. Still, microservices are not automatically the best choice. The move comes with new issues, so you should evaluate why you want the change before treating microservices as the default answer.
Why Breaking Up a System Can Work
A big reason people move to microservices is that scaling can be more targeted. In real apps, parts do not usually share the same load. Take an online store. Search pages and the checkout flow often get heavy traffic, while admin tools may stay quiet for long stretches.
With one large monolith, if you scale one part, you often end up scaling everything. When you split the work into services, teams can match compute and other resources to what each part needs. Microservices also help with release timing. A team can ship updates to its service without touching other parts that are unrelated. This matters most for big engineering groups. When many teams are involved, they rarely move at the same pace.
Shared Ownership and Responsibility
How you design the system and how you run the teams are linked. A large monolith can get messy when lots of teams rely on the same code. If the same repository holds everything, people must dig through code they do not own just to make a small change.
Worse, one edit can lead to side effects in parts you did not expect. Microservices can make ownership easier to see. One team can focus on authentication. Another team can focus on payments. Another might run notifications. The point is not only more codebases. The main aim is to set clear limits for who is responsible and how services are deployed and maintained. Still, those limits need to fit the real structure of the product and its systems.
Microservices Create a Distributed System
Microservices can help you build a distributed system, but it is easy to get it wrong. A common error is acting like microservices are just smaller versions of a monolith. When you split features, some work that used to happen in one program can now happen over the network. In that setup, one request may pass through multiple services before it finishes.
Network issues then affect normal operation. You also have to handle delays, failed calls, retries, and times when a service is down. On top of that, teams need better visibility. Logs from many services must be linked so an engineer can follow a single request. Metrics and tracing also matter, because they show what occurred across the full path.
Data handling gets harder too
Database design becomes a key topic. In a monolith, multiple parts of the app can often read and write the same database with little friction. In microservices, ownership is a bigger decision. You have to decide which service owns each data set.
When actions span more than one service, the old idea of one in-process transaction may no longer fit. Getting consistent results can take extra patterns and extra coordination. This does not automatically mean every service must run its own database in every case. What matters is clear ownership and a solid grasp of what happens when two services share data.
Microservices may make releases harder
One big draw of microservices is that teams can deploy on their own. The catch is that more autonomy means more parts to ship. A monolith often has one main app to release. With microservices, there can be many services.
Teams also tend to add more tooling to keep things stable. That can include CI or CD runs, containers, name lookup for services, ways to store credentials, checks and alerts, and some kind of release coordination. If that base is not ready, the added services can feel like an extra burden.
Not every monolith should be split
A monolith is not always a sign of poor engineering. For a small product with a small team, a clean monolith can be simpler to build, verify, and run. The key point is to ask if the current setup is actually causing trouble. Look for clear issues.
Examples include slow releases, limits when scaling, unclear responsibility for parts, or friction when you try to change one area. If none of that is happening, moving to microservices just because it is in fashion is unlikely to help.
Final Thoughts
Switching from a single monolith to microservices is not something you do just because it is new. It is usually a reaction to real issues your team faces. For example, backend groups may want to scale parts of the system on their own.
They may also want deployments that can happen without waiting on one big release. In some orgs, clear ownership matters too, especially as the team gets larger. Microservices can also help you split a big platform into pieces that match business areas.
That said, each new service adds extra work. You end up deploying more units, watching more logs, and handling more security tasks. You also need to keep more things running over time. Once services talk over the network, you inherit failure modes you did not see in a single app. Shared state becomes harder as well, since data is split across systems. Distributed data brings its own set of headaches.
(Source)