5 ms·

A chrome is a chrome... headless chrome uses almost the same resources as a desktop chrome (same engine and all that)

by 6_62607004 9y ago

hobofan 9y ago
Yes, but that doesn't matter in regards to the question "Is it scalable?" which OP asked.
- Scarbutt 9y ago
  But its no scalable, making it serverless just makes scalable at a huge cost.
  - hobofan 9y ago
    You are contradicting yourself. It is scalable. It scales linearly (and for practical purposes indefinitely) with the amount of money you spend on AWS Lambda. It might not have a nice constant factor, but it is scalable.
    - misterbwong 9y ago
      This is just pedantic. Anything can be scalable using that definition. Heck, I could hire a 3rd world worker to manually draw the PDF's, scan them to PDF using a scanner, and put them on a server and it would "scale linearly with the amount of money I spend" on labor.
      - hobofan 9y ago
        > Anything can be scalable using that definition. No, some things can't be, like badly architected monoliths, or databases. Especially with databases it's not a given, which is why for quite some time in the last years things like the "MongoDB is web scale" blew up and people started mindlessly asking "is it scalable" (which as you figured out, means very little for a lot of systems). I'm also pretty sure that your example scales worse than linearly, since you have to introduce multiple levels of management at some point. "scalable" = "can it be scaled", which is not a given for every system
      - jklein11 9y ago
        Redrawing the PDF's and scanning them would likely not scale linearly with the amount of money you spend on labor. Labor tends to have diminishing marginal returns. The cost of hiring two workers is more than double that of hiring one worker because there is additional complexity in coordinating the workers. Also, for the record, this comment I'm making right now is just pedantic.
        amigoingtodie 9y ago
        As long as the workers do not need to coordinate, it should scale. Round-robin those folks.
        jklein11 9y ago
        If there is only one worker the requests can flow directly to that one worker. If there are two workers, something would need to sit in the middle and determine how to distribute the requests. That extra hop is where the extra complexity comes from.
        amigoingtodie 9y ago
        Kanban

A chrome is a chrome... headless chrome uses almost the same resources as a desktop chrome (same engine and all that)

hobofan 9y ago

Yes, but that doesn't matter in regards to the question "Is it scalable?" which OP asked.

Scarbutt 9y ago
But its no scalable, making it serverless just makes scalable at a huge cost.
- hobofan 9y ago
  You are contradicting yourself. It is scalable. It scales linearly (and for practical purposes indefinitely) with the amount of money you spend on AWS Lambda. It might not have a nice constant factor, but it is scalable.
  - misterbwong 9y ago
    This is just pedantic. Anything can be scalable using that definition. Heck, I could hire a 3rd world worker to manually draw the PDF's, scan them to PDF using a scanner, and put them on a server and it would "scale linearly with the amount of money I spend" on labor.
    - hobofan 9y ago
      > Anything can be scalable using that definition. No, some things can't be, like badly architected monoliths, or databases. Especially with databases it's not a given, which is why for quite some time in the last years things like the "MongoDB is web scale" blew up and people started mindlessly asking "is it scalable" (which as you figured out, means very little for a lot of systems). I'm also pretty sure that your example scales worse than linearly, since you have to introduce multiple levels of management at some point. "scalable" = "can it be scaled", which is not a given for every system
    - jklein11 9y ago
      Redrawing the PDF's and scanning them would likely not scale linearly with the amount of money you spend on labor. Labor tends to have diminishing marginal returns. The cost of hiring two workers is more than double that of hiring one worker because there is additional complexity in coordinating the workers. Also, for the record, this comment I'm making right now is just pedantic.
      - amigoingtodie 9y ago
        As long as the workers do not need to coordinate, it should scale. Round-robin those folks.
        jklein11 9y ago
        If there is only one worker the requests can flow directly to that one worker. If there are two workers, something would need to sit in the middle and determine how to distribute the requests. That extra hop is where the extra complexity comes from.
        amigoingtodie 9y ago
        Kanban