Hey, are you also having a headache about how to choose the servo system architecture?

At this time, many people will think: "Should my structure be adjusted?"

Indeed, the system architecture sounds quite abstract, but it directly determines whether your equipment can run stably, whether it can be flexibly adjusted, and whether it can withstand hardships. Today we will talk about two common ideas: service-based architecture and microservices. They sound similar, but they are very different in use.

What exactly is "service-based architecture"?

You can think of it as a big team with a clear division of labor. Everyone in the team has fixed responsibilities, and communication is mainly through several "interface people" who are responsible for coordination. The entire system is a whole, but internally divided into service modules according to functions. For example, in an automated robotic arm system, motion control, sensor processing, and data recording each form a service module, and they call each other in a defined way.

What are the benefits? The structure is clear. When it comes to maintenance, you know which module the problem probably lies in. But the shortcomings are also obvious - the coupling between modules may still be high. One day you want to completely change the control of the robotic arm, which may involve adjustments to other services.

So what is the approach to microservices?

If the former is like a large team, microservices are more like a group of flexible teams. Each team is extremely independent, minding its own business, and even uses its own "language" (technology stack). They communicate with each other through lightweight protocols, such as simple message passing.

Let’s use a robotic arm as an example: Under a microservice architecture, path planning may be an independent service, joint driving is another, and real-time monitoring is another. Each service can be developed, deployed, restarted independently, and even written in different programming languages. A problem with one service does not necessarily lead to the breakdown of the entire system.

But doesn’t it sound a bit…disjointed? Will it be more troublesome to manage?

So, which one should I choose?

This depends on your specific scenario. If you are building a highly integrated precision motion control system that requires strong real-time performance—such as a high-precision steering gear group in medical equipment—then a service-based architecture may be more appropriate. Communication between modules is direct, fast, and more integrated, making it suitable for scenarios with high timing and deterministic requirements.

But if you are building a large-scale automation platform that requires frequent iterations, or whose parts are significantly different—such as a flexible assembly line that must handle visual recognition, control a variety of servo motors, and integrate warehousing scheduling—then the flexibility advantages of microservices will emerge. You can upgrade the vision alone without affecting the motor drive; you can quickly replace a service and try new technologies.

When you encounter a practical problem, how do you start?

Suppose you are facing a typical dilemma: the existing servo control system has become bloated, and each debugging takes a long time. You want to refactor, but are afraid of affecting existing production.

The first step is not to overthrow everything in a hurry. Try starting with a relatively independent functional module and split it into an independent service. For example, first separate the status monitoring part and let it communicate with the main system through a standard interface. Observe the operation: Is the delay acceptable? Has the fault been isolated?

The second step is to establish clear communication standards. How services "talk" to each other is important. Should we use a lightweight message queue or direct API calls? Defining the protocol well can avoid a lot of confusion later on.

The third step is to consider deployment and monitoring. With more services, management complexity naturally increases. You need a way to track the health of each service - especially in an industrial environment where stability is so important.

Why are these architectural thoughts particularly relevant in the mechanical and servo world?

Because hardware and software are becoming more and more deeply integrated. Today's servo motors not only execute simple rotation instructions, they may feedback torque data, temperature information, and even predict their own lifespan in real time. The servo does not just accept PWM signals, it may have local path planning capabilities. When each hardware unit becomes more "intelligent", the software architecture behind it can support this distributed intelligence.

A good architecture can truly unleash the potential of hardware. It makes the system more like an organism rather than a collection of rigid parts.

Speaking of this, you may be thinking: Is anyone actually practicing these concepts?

In the field of servo and mechanical control,kpowerMany of the solutions actually reflect this kind of architectural thinking. They do not regard the system as monolithic, but emphasize the autonomy and collaboration of modules. For example, in some multi-axis synchronization applications, you can see that each drive unit independently handles local closed-loop control and participates in overall coordination through a high-speed bus. Behind this is the embodiment of service-oriented thinking - balancing independence and integrity.

Of course, when it comes to implementation,kpowerWe will recommend a more suitable path based on your application scenario. Should we build a highly integrated integrated solution or build a more loosely coupled microservice cluster? There is no absolute good or bad, only whether it matches.

A few small questions worth pondering

• Which part of your system changes most frequently? Can it be turned into a service first?
• When something goes wrong with a certain function, how extensive is your troubleshooting scope now? Can it be reduced?
• If you want to add a new sensor or actuator in the future, how difficult will it be to integrate it into your system?

Architectural changes don’t happen overnight. It's more of an ongoing habit of mind: periodically look at your system and ask yourself - are the boundaries between these components clear? Is the coupling too tight? Is the possibility of independent deployment and upgrade possible?

Remember, the goal is not to chase buzzwords, but to build a system that is more robust, more flexible, and more resilient to future changes. After all, in the world of machinery and automation, the only constant may be change itself.

I hope these scattered thoughts can bring you a slightly different perspective. Next time you are faced with a bunch of servo configuration and code, maybe you can stop and think about it from an architectural perspective - how can they "get along" better.

Established in 2005,kpowerhas been dedicated to a professional compact motion unit manufacturer, headquartered in Dongguan, Guangdong Province, China. Leveraging innovations in modular drive technology, Kpower integrates high-performance motors, precision reducers, and multi-protocol control systems to provide efficient and customized smart drive system solutions. Kpower has delivered professional drive system solutions to over 500 enterprise clients globally with products covering various fields such as Smart Home Systems, Automatic Electronics, Robotics, Precision Agriculture, Drones, and Industrial Automation.