Not Goto, Microservices Considered Harmful

Ian Smith, Oct 2023

Episode 1

This is the first of a three part series of articles. The first of these explains the problems created by microservices in development. The second discusses two key problems, and the microservices’ advocates claims about these problems: dependencies and horizontal scaling. The final article is explores the cost, both operational and development, of typical microservice deployments.

Ref: “Go To Statement Considered Harmful”, March 1968 issue of Communications of the ACM, by Edsger Dijkstra.

Building a distributed system is hard(er).

You have two potential designs for the structure of a new product, a single program and a distributed system. If you ask a developer of even the most modest experience which is “easier to build”, you will certainly get the answer that the single program is easier. (If you don’t, then you have a different problem.) There are certainly other constraints that need to be considered when building a new software system other than the ease with which it can be built, but frequently the ease of building is wrongly not given its proper respect in the heirarchy of constraints. Software developer cost is always the most expensive part of the software build, so not giving ease of construction the primary importance in terms of the prioritization of goals is going to be more expensive. Second, the time to build–which is the brother or cousin of ease of building–is nearly always a key driver of project success. If it’s easier to build, you get customer feedback (and failure) faster. If it’s easier to build, you have the opportunity to gain first-mover advantage in the marketplace.

Is a microservice architecture always a distributed system?

Since distributed systems are harder to build, is it fair to characterize any microservice-based architecture as a distributed system? I argue that it is. The problem is that if you remove the distributed system part of anything that claims to be microservices, you are left with just the much older idea of “modularization”. Few, if any, would argue against modularization in software, so the term “microservice” must imply a particular, distributed type of modularization, or there is no point in such a word.

The complexity disease and its effects on the body software

There is not sufficient space in a short article to include all the problems that complexity causes in software building. There are dozens of books on the topic from authors both estemeed and not. Internet rants about complexity are rife and a google search reveals many thousands of such articles and discussions[sic]. For our purpose we’ll limit ourselves to three, easy-to-describe ailments that flow from the complexity disease. These are debugging, failure handling (or not), and testing.


All of the debugging problems flow from the distributed nature of the microservices architecture. The most obvious problem is the name of this symptom: debuggers. Modern debuggers are designed to work on a single program. Although it’s possible to run several copies of a debugger on the different microservices that you need to debug, this is a big hassle and likely not pssible for larger microservice deployments. If you have 300 microservices running, which ones do you run the debugger on? How would one determine what those are, due to the modularity (concealment) of the microservices' dependencies? Even if you can get debuggers running in the needed places, the debuggers are likely to have a substantial effect on the ordering of operations when considering the distributed system as a whole, since a debugger changes the CPU profile of an application.

The usual step before trying to run multiple debuggers is to use logs. If you consider multiple log files being generated on different machines, the difficulty is obvious. These have to be collected and then “merged in your head” or with tools to see the complete picture of what is happening. With clock drift between machines, it’s possible that this “merge” cannot be done at all, especially on the timescales that modern servers operate on. What is the cost of not knowing the causal ordering of different services? With the use of centralized logging tool of some type, this problem can be largely be obviated. However, in practice several well-known tech companies do not use such a tool/system for developers. The operational complexity and cost seems to cause some companies to spend the money on a centralized logging system only for production. While this is certainly a great thing for finding production problems, it’s little help with debugging during normal development.

To help address this problem, there are numerous vendors and open source projects trying to increase visibilty into the complete path that a given request follows during its lifecycle. This is clearly a major benefit, but again it is frequently not deployed in organzations for developers. In both this case and centralized logging, one can make a reasonable argument that the money/effort spent on both centralized logging and request path visibility would be better spent on developers rather than production.

Symptom:Failure Handling (or not)

Broadly speaking, failure/error handling in a distributed system is known to be hard. Like, predicting the stock market kind of hard! For those not familiar with this problem, it hinges on a quite simple fact: The (separate) program that notices/receives the failure may not (does not) have the global information necessary to make a good decision about error handling. If you think about a caller and callee where a request flows from caller to callee, and the callee is seriously impaired, making a “good” decision about errors that occur in the broken receives is difficult. This difficulty comes from the fact the broken service doesn’t have even have knowlege of the caller, much less global knowlege. Even if the error is simply propagated back to the caller, the same issue results, with caller now being the callee of some other service.

The “right thing to do” about many errors requires global knowlege about the state of the system (to say nothing of the user!) The simplest possible example here the difference between product and testing; in one case a system failure is expected/desired, in the other case it is not. In fairness, there are some languages (go) and frameworks that try to provide some amount of context to the callee, but these are not use anywhere near enough to be considered standard.


Developers love tests. These are the “backstop” that allows a developer to have confidence in changes they are making. In a microservice architecture, testing becomes vastly more difficult, and many organizations abandon testing in areas that they would never allow in a non-microservice architecture.

As it is indicative of related choices organizations make, we will digress briefly into why organizations give up on testing when using microservices. The primary driver of this behavior is that as the number of microservices gets large, ever larger efforts are required to give developers a “reasonable facisimile” of the production environment. I spoke to two major tech companies who did not make this choice, and both admitted that they had an entire team dedicated to the issue of making environments available to developers that were very similar to the production system. For those without the resources to spend on multiple engineering heads on development tooling, things look far grimmer. It is not uncommon for even mid-sized technology companies to have no easy way to create a complete copy of the production system for a developers’ personal use. Many of these types of organizions (several of which I spoke to personally) had various “dodges” to avoid needing complete copies of the running system. The two most common dodges were “partial production” or “shared staging environment.” In the former case the developer declares that some services (usually on the scale of 3-5) are to be run locally and the remainder are to use the existing production system. The latter is simply the creation of a fixed number of copies of the production system, and a plausible data set, that developers can/must use for their testing. The coordination problem with this latter approach here is obvious.

Returning to testing more directly, the problems above with respect to logging in a distributed system reappear here. Because of the network latencies, scheduler choices, and generally just randomness, a distributed system is hard to get into a “particular state” for a test. This is true of nearly any test where multiple services are involved, because the interactions of services matter. Getting the world into a particular state is critical to the very concept of testing, particularly when the world state is a bad one. If you used the “partial production” approach above, are you going to be willing to force production services into known bad states so that a developer can run a test? No. The worst outcome of trying to test a microservice based system can be heard in many engineering offices, “Oh, try running the tests again.” This means that the developers no longer believe in the test results they are receiving, which is the dark and direct route to system failures.

Bonus Symptom:Startup

For most developers, the way to create a workable integration test structure is to start up a fresh copy of the “system” (see above) and run specific requests to test the results. The key here is “fresh system”. Because systems typically start in a well-known and predictable state, that is the easiest way to control things for a test. However, if your system has, say 20 or 30 services that need to be started, variance in the startup timing can be significant. If you are trying to test service A, how are you to know that service A’s behavior depends materially on whether B is “already up” when A starts? In effect, your test now has a hidden dependency on the startup ordering. A distributed system can be 71% up, a single program cannot.

With the needed apologies to The Bard and Marc Anthony, I have written this article to bury microservices, not to praise them. For a developer, the symptoms above are sufficient to make him/her question if a new software project really wants to start with the complexity disease. The disease may be something that is worth tolerating for some specific benefits–but it’s not something that a couple of aspirin and a morning phone call will fix.

Brutus was a microservice advocate, Brutus was an honorable man.

Last modified October 16, 2023: forgot to save (4822059)