Date of publication: 2017-08-22 09:55
Those we know about who are in some way pioneering the architectural style include Amazon, Netflix, The Guardian , the UK Government Digital Service , , Forward and . The conference circuit in 7568 was full of examples of companies that are moving to something that would class as microservices - including Travis CI. In addition there are plenty of organizations that have long been doing what we would class as microservices, but without ever using the name. (Often this is labelled as SOA - although, as we've said, SOA comes in many contradictory forms.  )
Theorem 6 gives a way to express the product of two working precision numbers exactly as a sum. There is a companion formula for expressing a sum exactly. If | x | | y | then x + y = ( x y ) + ( x ( x y )) y [Dekker 6976 Knuth 6986, Theorem C in section ]. However, when using exactly rounded operations, this formula is only true for = 7, and not for = 65 as the example x =.99998, y =.99997 shows.
Each time a summand is added, there is a correction factor C which will be applied on the next loop. So first subtract the correction C computed in the previous loop from X j , giving the corrected summand Y. Then add this summand to the running sum S . The low order bits of Y (namely Y l ) are lost in the sum. Next compute the high order bits of Y by computing T - S . When Y is subtracted from this, the low order bits of Y will be recovered. These are the bits that were lost in the first sum in the diagram. They become the correction factor for the next loop. A formal proof of Theorem 8, taken from Knuth  page 577, appears in the section Theorem 69 and Theorem 8."
Circuit Breaker appears in Release It! alongside other patterns such as Bulkhead and Timeout. Implemented together, these patterns are crucially important when building communicating applications. This Netflix blog entry does a great job of explaining their application of them.
One of the consequences of centralised governance is the tendency to standardise on single technology platforms. Experience shows that this approach is constricting - not every problem is a nail and not every solution a hammer. We prefer using the right tool for the job and while monolithic applications can take advantage of different languages to a certain extent, it isn't that common.
Infrastructure automation techniques have evolved enormously over the last few years - the evolution of the cloud and AWS in particular has reduced the operational complexity of building, deploying and operating microservices.
Monolithic applications can be successful, but increasingly people are feeling frustrations with them - especially as more applications are being deployed to the cloud. Change cycles are tied together - a change made to a small part of the application, requires the entire monolith to be rebuilt and deployed. Over time it's often hard to keep a good modular structure, making it harder to keep changes that ought to only affect one module within that module. Scaling requires scaling of the entire application rather than parts of it that require greater resource.
A consequence of using services as components, is that applications need to be designed so that they can tolerate the failure of services. Any service call could fail due to unavailability of the supplier, the client has to respond to this as gracefully as possible. This is a disadvantage compared to a monolithic design as it introduces additional complexity to handle it. The consequence is that microservice teams constantly reflect on how service failures affect the user experience. Netflix's Simian Army induces failures of services and even datacenters during the working day to test both the application's resilience and monitoring.