Search papers, labs, and topics across Lattice.
This paper empirically compares the performance of monolithic and microservices architectures for an e-commerce application, using a shared PostgreSQL database as the backend. Through controlled experiments with varying virtual user loads, the microservices architecture demonstrated superior performance at higher loads, achieving 5.4% higher throughput and significantly lower latency compared to the monolithic design. The findings highlight that while microservices improve scalability and reduce tail latency, they also introduce unique failure modes that require careful management.
Microservices can outperform monolithic architectures under heavy load, but they come with new challenges in failure management.
Microservices architectures are widely adopted for their promised scalability and modularity, yet empirical evidence comparing their runtime performance to monolithic designs remains context-dependent. This paper presents an experimental comparison of a monolithic and a microservices implementation of the same e-commerce application, both backed by a shared PostgreSQL database. Using k6, we subject both systems to identical HTTP workloads at 50 and 100 virtual users (VUs) over 60-second runs, measuring throughput, latency, and error rates. At 50 VUs, both architectures perform similarly with no errors. At 100 VUs, the microservices design achieves 5.4% higher throughput, 25% lower average latency, and 39% lower p95 latency than the monolith, while exhibiting a lower median error rate (0.00% vs 0.69%). The monolith shows consistent order-creation failures under load, whereas microservices failures are transient and confined to the cart service in one run. These results suggest that, in this deployment context, decomposing the system into microservices improves scalability and tail latency under stress, while introducing distinct, service-specific failure modes that must be managed.
