3 ms·
We use AWS lambda, and when our lambdas fail, and they are triggered by AWS services asynchronously (i.e CloudWatch logs, S3 events), AWS does not care a limiti
by CSDude 9y ago
We use AWS lambda, and when our lambdas fail, and they are triggered by AWS services asynchronously (i.e CloudWatch logs, S3 events), AWS does not care a limiting at all, and calls our lambdas in a recursively increasing fashion and it causes hundreds of parallel execution, which DDOS'es our internal servers and we reach the concurrenct execution limit for Lambda, and all other our lambdas suffer from one single failing function. Just a heads up before you make use of "unlimited scaling" of lambda.
- mankash666 9y agoWell - isn't this technically a bug in your lambda? If this were running on a traditional server managed by you, it might still do bad things to your service.
- CSDude 9y agoYes, but I could add a rate limiter, and If I try to do the limiting myself, it would contradict the serverless approach
- pedalpete 9y agoAWS will throttle you at 1000 concurrent functions in a single zone. If you're running across zones, I could see this being a problem, but it sounds more like a problem with your code than with lambdas. Wouldn't you have the same problem if you had one hugely capable server trying to interact with your internal server which is not as capable?
- CSDude 9y agoYes, you are right, but as a managed service, it would be nice to have a function level concurrency limit, not account level limit. You can have an accident, you might just forget a simple thing, and it should not cause account wide distruption.