Choosing Pekko Cluster

An architectural choice you have to make is if you are going to use a microservices architecture or a traditional distributed application. This choice will influence how you should use Pekko Cluster.


Microservices architecture has many attractive properties, such as the independent nature of microservices allows for multiple smaller and more focused teams that can deliver new functionality more frequently and can respond quicker to business opportunities. Reactive Microservices should be isolated, autonomous, and have a single responsibility as identified by Jonas Bonér in the book Reactive Microsystems: The Evolution of Microservices at Scale.

In a microservices architecture, you should consider communication within a service and between services.

In general we recommend against using Pekko Cluster and actor messaging between different services because that would result in a too tight code coupling between the services and difficulties deploying these independent of each other, which is one of the main reasons for using a microservices architecture.

Nodes of a single service (collectively called a cluster) require less decoupling. They share the same code and are deployed together, as a set, by a single team or individual. There might be two versions running concurrently during a rolling deployment, but deployment of the entire set has a single point of control. For this reason, intra-service communication can take advantage of Pekko Cluster, failure management and actor messaging, which is convenient to use and has great performance.

Between different services Pekko HTTP or Pekko gRPC can be used for synchronous (yet non-blocking) communication and Pekko Streams Kafka or other Pekko Connectors for integration asynchronous communication. All those communication mechanisms work well with streaming of messages with end-to-end back-pressure, and the synchronous communication tools can also be used for single request response interactions. It is also important to note that when using these tools both sides of the communication do not have to be implemented with Pekko, nor does the programming language matter.

Traditional distributed application

We acknowledge that microservices also introduce many new challenges and it’s not the only way to build applications. A traditional distributed application may have less complexity and work well in many cases. For example for a small startup, with a single team, building an application where time to market is everything. Pekko Cluster can efficiently be used for building such distributed application.

In this case, you have a single deployment unit, built from a single code base (or using traditional binary dependency management to modularize) but deployed across many nodes using a single cluster. Tighter coupling is OK, because there is a central point of deployment and control. In some cases, nodes may have specialized runtime roles which means that the cluster is not totally homogenous (e.g., “front-end” and “back-end” nodes, or dedicated master/worker nodes) but if these are run from the same built artifacts this is just a runtime behavior and doesn’t cause the same kind of problems you might get from tight coupling of totally separate artifacts.

A tightly coupled distributed application has served the industry and many Pekko users well for years and is still a valid choice.

Distributed monolith

There is also an anti-pattern that is sometimes called “distributed monolith”. You have multiple services that are built and deployed independently from each other, but they have a tight coupling that makes this very risky, such as a shared cluster, shared code and dependencies for service API calls, or a shared database schema. There is a false sense of autonomy because of the physical separation of the code and deployment units, but you are likely to encounter problems because of changes in the implementation of one service leaking into the behavior of others. See Ben Christensen’s Don’t Build a Distributed Monolith.

Organizations that find themselves in this situation often react by trying to centrally coordinate deployment of multiple services, at which point you have lost the principal benefit of microservices while taking on the costs. You are in a halfway state with things that aren’t really separable being built and deployed in a separate way. Some people do this, and some manage to make it work, but it’s not something we would recommend and it needs to be carefully managed.