microservices are tech debt

Why is your servo motor project being quietly dragged down by "microservices"?

Imagine this: you have put a lot of effort into building a control system, and each part has chosen the latest technology, such as using a microservice architecture, thinking that it will be flexible for future upgrades and easy to expand. The result? After the system started running, I found that the response would be stuck from time to time. Debugging was like spinning in a maze. Maintenance costs were getting higher and higher. The initial refreshing feeling brought by "modularity" was gradually overwhelmed by complex dependencies and communication overhead.

Does this feeling sound familiar? Many people have begun to realize that microservices can easily become a kind of technical debt in hardware-intensive projects—especially mechanical systems such as servo motors and steering gears that require real-time coordination. It's not that microservices are bad, but that in this scenario, it may be a bit "too hard".

What's the problem?

Simply put, microservices split an application into multiple independent services, and each service can be deployed and expanded independently. This is great in the realm of pure software, but when it comes to hardware control, things change. The operation of servo motors requires high real-time performance and strong synchronization, and signals must be transmitted stably at the millisecond level. Network communication and serialization overhead between microservices often introduce uncontrollable delay and jitter.

Even more troublesome is debugging. A simple movement command may span several services. Once something goes wrong, tracing the link is like checking a maze without a map. Over time, most of the team's energy was consumed by maintaining the interfaces and protocols between these services, and the core motion control was ignored.

This is a bit like inserting a complex intelligent management system into a sophisticated mechanical watch - it has more functions, but the time is inaccurate.

Are there any alternative ideas that are more "down to earth"?

Instead of pursuing architectural fashion, it is better to return to the essence of hardware projects: stable, real-time, and easy to maintain. In some scenarios with extremely high synchronization requirements, a single architecture or streamlined modular design is more reliable. The key is not to abandon microservices completely, but to rethink - how to take into account flexibility while ensuring real-time performance?

Let me share some experience: We can divide the system into physical modules according to functional domains instead of forcibly splitting it into distributed services. For example, put motion control, signal processing, and status monitoring in the same process, isolate concerns through clear internal layers, and reduce unnecessary network jumps. At the communication layer, a lighter IPC mechanism or real-time bus is used to replace the general HTTP/RPC.

The benefits of this are obvious: latency is reduced, debugging paths are shortened, and the whole thing looks more like a "solid" machine rather than a bunch of "loose" components.

How to tell if your project needs adjustments?

You might as well ask yourself a few questions:

• Is the system experiencing unexplained response delays?
• Does debugging a motion issue require spanning multiple teams or logging systems?
• Is every update always accompanied by unexpected dependency conflicts?
• If the answer is "yes," it might be time to look back and see if the architecture is too complex.

Of course, this doesn’t mean that all projects have to go back. Rather, it is emphasized that in the field of hardware control, the choice of architecture serves the physical characteristics of the device rather than blindly following software trends. Sometimes, simplicity, directness, and reliability are the best.

Moving forward: Let technology reconnect with the "pulse" of machinery

Adjusting the structure is not a reinvention, but a focus. Focus resources on core movements and drivers, allowing the software layer to serve the hardware more "quietly". This often leads to more stable performance, lower maintenance costs, and faster iterations.

Good technical design should not make people feel its existence - it just makes the machine run more smoothly.

During this process, it is important to choose a partner who understands the characteristics of the mechanical system. picturekpowerThe experience accumulated in the field of servo and mechanical control focuses on finding a tight and efficient balance between software and hardware. The solutions they provide often do not chase fashionable labels, but go deep into the underlying timing, synchronization and reliability, helping projects avoid those "invisible" pitfalls.

In the final analysis, technology is not absolutely good or bad, only whether it is suitable or not. In the world of precision machinery, stability, real-time, and maintainability are always the truths that will never go out of style. If your project is plagued by "microservice debt," perhaps now is a good time to look back and recalibrate. After all, making machines run obediently is our ultimate goal, right?

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,kpowerintegrates 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.