3 ms·

I have to admit that I don't get it either for most of these offerings (as mentioned elsewhere, there are offering from all the big tech giants incl. IBM). Howe

I have to admit that I don't get it either for most of these offerings (as mentioned elsewhere, there are offering from all the big tech giants incl. IBM). However, it seems to me that one could just use a $10/mo Linode that is always running and predictably costs $120/yr. There could be data transfer costs into/out of these cloud services that make Lambda-like offerings more competitive from a TCO perspective, but that seems unlikely and project specific. I would like to hear a valid use-case from an actual user. Edit: typos/ punctuation

IanCal 11y ago
I can run a $10/mo linode box, but then I need to deal with 1. Scaling up 2. Scaling down 3. Actually managing the box itself If what you're making is compute focused, then this kind of thing is a godsend. I want to write code to do some processing and have a team of magic elves handle all the hardware related stuff. The other advantage is that I can price things really easily. One call == 23s processing time on average. How much do 100 users making an average of 100 calls each day cost me? Running my own boxes means I need to consider reasonable waiting times, peak usage, speed of scaling, etc. With something like this/lambda/google's version I just go cost_per_second multiplied by 23 multiplied by 10,000.
RussianCow 11y ago
Not an actual user, but I know people who have used Lambda with success. I think the main use case is APIs for which traffic is extremely variable. It's less about cost and more about the ability to seamlessly scale up with traffic. For instance, if your site gets featured on Hacker News, services like Lambda and S3 allow your site to scale almost infinitely and handle all that traffic with ease, and yet they're super cheap when you don't get much traffic, so in those cases you get the best of both worlds. The equivalent using a traditional VPS is either to have a really beefy machine running 24/7 (expensive), or to build an architecture that allows you to spin up more instances at will and scale that way (really time-consuming and difficult to get right).
- ddorian43 11y ago
  I think you need a cdn to scale s3. So probably s3 is not enough. The equivalent if your api is mostly for reading is to put varnish in front of it.
  - RussianCow 11y ago
    S3 can scale with traffic all by itself, so you don't necessarily need a CDN. The CDN just distributes your assets around the world, and also does a few other things like caching to help those assets load more quickly.
inlineint 11y ago
> that is always running and predictably costs $120/yr. And predictably won't earn you magnitude more than $120/yr.
deleted 11y ago
[deleted]

IanCal 11y ago

I can run a $10/mo linode box, but then I need to deal with 1. Scaling up 2. Scaling down 3. Actually managing the box itself If what you're making is compute focused, then this kind of thing is a godsend. I want to write code to do some processing and have a team of magic elves handle all the hardware related stuff. The other advantage is that I can price things really easily. One call == 23s processing time on average. How much do 100 users making an average of 100 calls each day cost me? Running my own boxes means I need to consider reasonable waiting times, peak usage, speed of scaling, etc. With something like this/lambda/google's version I just go cost_per_second multiplied by 23 multiplied by 10,000.

RussianCow 11y ago

Not an actual user, but I know people who have used Lambda with success. I think the main use case is APIs for which traffic is extremely variable. It's less about cost and more about the ability to seamlessly scale up with traffic. For instance, if your site gets featured on Hacker News, services like Lambda and S3 allow your site to scale almost infinitely and handle all that traffic with ease, and yet they're super cheap when you don't get much traffic, so in those cases you get the best of both worlds. The equivalent using a traditional VPS is either to have a really beefy machine running 24/7 (expensive), or to build an architecture that allows you to spin up more instances at will and scale that way (really time-consuming and difficult to get right).

ddorian43 11y ago
I think you need a cdn to scale s3. So probably s3 is not enough. The equivalent if your api is mostly for reading is to put varnish in front of it.
- RussianCow 11y ago
  S3 can scale with traffic all by itself, so you don't necessarily need a CDN. The CDN just distributes your assets around the world, and also does a few other things like caching to help those assets load more quickly.

inlineint 11y ago

> that is always running and predictably costs $120/yr. And predictably won't earn you magnitude more than $120/yr.

deleted 11y ago

[deleted]