Although microservices have obvious advantages, they also bring certain problems. For example, the number of developed services increases, remote calls are slower, and there is always a risk of…

Question

Options

• ATrue
• BFalse

• A
  18% (10)
• B
  82% (46)

Explanation

Option B (False) is correct because the premise of the question is misleading - microservice architecture is widely recommended and broadly adopted precisely because its advantages (scalability, independent deployment, technology flexibility, fault isolation) typically outweigh its challenges in many real-world scenarios, not just special ones. The question's claim that microservices are "generally not recommended" contradicts mainstream industry practice and architectural guidance. While the drawbacks listed - increased service count, slower remote calls, and failure risk - are real, they are manageable through patterns like API gateways, circuit breakers, service meshes, and observability tooling. Option A is wrong because it accepts a false characterization: organizations routinely adopt microservices for large-scale systems, and the difficulties are treated as engineering problems to solve, not reasons to avoid the architecture.

Memory tip: Think of microservices like a team - coordinating many people is harder than working alone, but for large enough problems, the specialization and parallelism make it worthwhile. The question tries to trick you into focusing only on the costs; always weigh costs against benefits.

No community discussion yet for this question.