From bulky all-in-one machines to flexible microservices: How to quietly upgrade your mechanical projects

Remember the servo motor project from last time? During debugging, the entire system has to stop, and a small change requires redeploying the entire program, which makes people panic. It feels like – you want to change out a light in your living room, but you have to turn off the circuit in the entire house.

Many people are still using traditional monolithic architecture to handle machine control projects. That’s not to say it doesn’t work at all, it’s just that times have changed. You may be faced with dozens of servo motors that need to be controlled independently, the servo action sequence needs to be adjusted at any time, and a certain joint of the robotic arm needs to be upgraded individually. At this time, a huge "whole" has become a burden.

What are microservices? You can understand with a metaphor

Imagine that the way you used to manage things was to lock all your tools in a big tool box, and every time you wanted to use a wrench, you had to drag the entire box out. And now? Each tool has its own small hanging board for easy access. Microservices almost have this logic - splitting a large system into many independent small functional modules, each module is responsible for one thing, such as processing position feedback, managing motion curves, and communicating protocols.

This way, if one module needs to be updated or fixed, other parts will continue to function as usual. Like you can individually adjust the gripping strength of a robot while it's running, without having to stop the entire production line.

Why is this particularly friendly for mechanical projects?

First, you no longer have to worry about upgrading. In the past, modifying the control logic of the servo may involve communication modules or even UI interfaces. Now you only need to move one of the "small units", the test scope is smaller and the risk is lower. Does the driving method of a certain servo motor need iteration? Just update that service, and the rest will be ignored.

Second, faults are isolated in "cubicles." In traditional architecture, an error in a subroutine often triggers an avalanche. In the microservice architecture, if the temperature monitoring module is temporarily abnormal, the motion control module can still continue to perform the scheduled tasks - the system will not be completely paralyzed, leaving you with time for troubleshooting.

Third, teamwork becomes natural. Different groups can be responsible for trajectory planning services, status monitoring services, and alarm processing services respectively, and develop in parallel without frequently waiting for each other. Just like designing a complex machine tool, the mechanical group, electrical group, and software group can each advance their own "micro-modules" and combine them like building blocks.

However, will it be more difficult to manage if it is too broken up?

Good question. It's like going from managing a large workshop to coordinating multiple specialized workshops. New ideas are really needed:

• Each service must be "autonomous": Just like an independent micro machine tool, it has complete input, processing, and output capabilities, and can complete core functions without relying on other services.
• Communication should be lightweight and efficient: Services communicate with each other through concise APIs and agree on the interface format, just like using standardized documents to transfer semi-finished products between workshops.
• Monitoring needs global visualization: You need a dashboard that can see the health status of all services at a glance - which ones are running, which ones are under high load, and which ones have alarms, instead of looking for needles in the ocean of logs.

How to use it in real-life scenarios?

Suppose you are building a multi-axis synchronized precision platform. A traditional approach might be to have one huge central program controlling all axes. With the microservices approach, you can:

• Set up an independent "motion control service" for each axis, only caring about the position, speed and torque of its own axis.
• Another "synchronization coordination service" is set up, which is responsible for calculating the phase relationship between each axis and sending synchronization instructions to each axis.
• There is also a "safety monitoring service" to check the status of each axis in real time and trigger protection actions immediately if the tolerance is exceeded.

Does a certain axis need to be replaced with a different type of motor? You only need to adjust the control service parameters corresponding to the axis or even replace the service version. There is almost no need to change other parts. This kind of flexibility can really save time and effort in projects with frequent iterations or high customization requirements.

Sounds beautiful, will the transition be painful?

Any structural adjustment requires investment, but it can be done gradually. There is no need to rewrite the entire system at once. Common paths are:

1. Identify a relatively independent functional module from the current system—such as an alarm processing module or a data logging module—and separate it into an independent service first.
2. Establish communication mechanisms and monitoring tools between services.
3. After tasting the benefits, we will gradually "microservice" other modules one by one.

This is like transforming a traditional workshop: first set up an independent quality inspection workshop, and then gradually separate the spraying, assembly and other links after it runs smoothly. During the process, most functions of the original system are still available and the transition is smooth.

Where do the tools and support come from?

Deeply engaged in the fields of servo motors, steering gears and mechanical controlkpower, has already integrated microservice architecture thinking into its design. What they provide is not only parts and components, but also a set of method support that makes complex control projects lightweight and iterable. This architectural advantage emerges when your project faces frequent adjustments, requires high availability, or your team needs to develop in parallel.

Next time you start a project, you might want to ask yourself: Will this feature change independently in the future? Is this part of the fault expected to be isolated? If the answer is "possible" or "hopeful", then the idea of ​​microservices may be the hidden path that allows the project to go further and more stably.

In the end, the choice of technical architecture is not to chase trends, but to make machines more obedient, engineers to have less worry, and innovative ideas to be implemented faster and more steadily into reality. When each part can breathe independently and grow together, the vitality of the entire system will naturally be different.

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.