Hacker News Reader

Comment by Clubber | Hacker News Reader

10 people managing a single "micro service" does raise a red flag to me as well. It may be normal based on the complexity, but my first thought is, why is the codebase require so many people to maintain and add features to? Are they just adding features like mad, or something squirrelly in there where most modifications take a lot of man hours?

View on HN

How micro can it possibly be if it takes 10 people to deal with it? Seriously.

Cause it's not very micro?

The scope of a microservice is commonly a bounded context in DDD. So depending upon the problem you might be talking about a lot of code.

If "micro" refers to the scope of the service (i.e. very limited feature set), you might still need a team to run it, if the service has to handle a very high volume of transactions or provide very low latency, or both.

It’s not unreasonable to imagine that any of the examples provided in the source post could require a team larger than 10 people.

"Micro" in this case relates to the services scope, not its operational footprint.

So if Netflix has a "User logon" service, and a "payment processing" service, used across their clients clients you might be looking at a couple of "microservice"s with hundreds of related employees. Imagine services for Googles search autocomplete, ML, or analytics...

As the article states the "micro" aspect is mostly in terms of deployment responsibility, freeing those 10-1000 employees from thinking about the totality of Googles/Netflixes' operations before rolling out a patch :)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com