Monolithic vs. Microservices – Trade‑offs
| Aspect | Monolithic Architecture | Microservices Architecture |
|---|---|---|
| Deployment | Single artifact; one deployable unit. | Independent services; each can be deployed separately. |
| Complexity | Simpler to develop, test, and run initially. | Higher operational complexity (service discovery, networking, monitoring). |
| Scalability | Scale the whole app even if only one part is hot. | Scale individual services based on demand, saving resources. |
| Team Autonomy | Larger codebase → tighter coordination among developers. | Small, bounded‑context services → teams can work independently. |
| Fault Isolation | A bug or resource leak can bring down the entire app. | Failures are contained to the offending service (if designed correctly). |
| Technology Diversity | Typically one tech stack for the whole system. | Each service can use the language, framework, or database that fits its needs. |
| Operational Overhead | Fewer moving parts → lower DevOps burden. | Need CI/CD pipelines, container orchestration, logging, tracing, etc. |
| Time‑to‑Market | Faster to get a MVP up and running. | Longer initial setup; benefits accrue as the system grows. |
When a Monolithic Architecture Might Be Preferable
Scenario: A startup is building its first product—a simple web‑based SaaS tool with a limited feature set and a small development team.
- Why monolithic?
- Speed: One codebase, one build pipeline → rapid prototyping and early customer feedback.
- Low overhead: No need for service discovery, distributed tracing, or complex CI/CD for multiple services.
- Resource constraints: Fewer servers/containers to manage, reducing cloud costs.
- Team size: With 2‑4 engineers, coordinating changes across many services would be inefficient.
Once the product gains traction, the team can reassess and consider extracting high‑traffic or high‑complexity components into microservices.
