4 ms·
I tried to use and love lambda, spending a lot of time making my use-case work for their poor development and deployment environment (a zip file, really??). In
by iamleppert 11y ago
I tried to use and love lambda, spending a lot of time making my use-case work for their poor development and deployment environment (a zip file, really??). In the end, I had to abandon the effort.
They only allow a certain fixed execution time and 500 mb of temp space, max. And they won't raise these limits.
During testing I noticed that frequently I would have the same contents of empirical storage (/tmp) -- i.e. i'd be running on the same host.
I have a sneaking suspicion that the entire purpose of lambda is to resell capacity on hosts that aren't busy -- but could be -- thus the low CPU time limits and storage spaces. I'm sure someone would not notice 500 MB or 5 minutes of CPU time vampired on their less busy, not monitored hosts from time to time. And if the real user does need the capacity, they can just kill the process, which had happened many times in my testing (process would be killed or die for no reason).
Sounds great and amazing in theory, but execution is horrible and unusable except as a toy.
- tjholowaychuk 11y agoI had a similar feeling when I first tried it. The UX is really bad, I'll give you that! For my current use-cases though I think it'll be just fine. That's interesting about the random kills, I'll keep an eye out for that, good to know. Interesting theory though haha, wouldn't surprise me too much.