5 ms·

This has been my experience 100%. It's super tempting at first, with 1,000,000 free invocations per month, plus paying for compute at the microsecond scale. Bu

This has been my experience 100%. It's super tempting at first, with 1,000,000 free invocations per month, plus paying for compute at the microsecond scale. But then you run into all of the problems you've outlined, plus, the tooling process for CI/CD to serverless isn't so great (even with frameworks like Serverless Stack). That being said, I'm personally excited about the managed Kubernetes offering AWS recently announced. The idea of being able to build my own containers and then just have AWS manage them based on pre-defined configuration I've given them is a lot better than the smoke-and-mirrors Lambda gives you today. For example, how can I tell how many Lambdas of mine are running concurrently? How many are warm or cold? There's lots of visibility lost in Lambda as it is today (not to say they aren't working on improving it).

adambyrtek 9y ago
> That being said, I'm personally excited about the managed Kubernetes offering AWS recently announced. Another alternative for managing containers on a cluster of machines is AWS ECS. It has been around for a while and integrates really well with other AWS services (e.g. Cloudwatch, ALB). Unlike Kubernetes the scheduler is proprietary, but the agent running on individual instances is open source. We've been using ECS for a while together with Terraform for managing the whole infrastructure in immutable and declarative way, and it has been great so far.
- jadeklerk 9y ago
  I've used both, and ECS was definitely the bigger pain. I deployed to and managed an ECS cluster for 8 months; the lack of replicability locally (which sucks for testing and CI/CD), the opaque and limited management options, and the lack of community interest / discussion all turned us off. I think hosted kubernetes was easily the better option for us.
jondubois 9y ago
I agree, hosted Kubernetes is what serverless should have been. The current idea of serverless is a weird, restrictive bandage patch solution designed to hook and trap users. It's only popular because Amazon has poured probably billions of dollars into it and have lobbied their way into many corporations.

adambyrtek 9y ago

> That being said, I'm personally excited about the managed Kubernetes offering AWS recently announced. Another alternative for managing containers on a cluster of machines is AWS ECS. It has been around for a while and integrates really well with other AWS services (e.g. Cloudwatch, ALB). Unlike Kubernetes the scheduler is proprietary, but the agent running on individual instances is open source. We've been using ECS for a while together with Terraform for managing the whole infrastructure in immutable and declarative way, and it has been great so far.

jadeklerk 9y ago
I've used both, and ECS was definitely the bigger pain. I deployed to and managed an ECS cluster for 8 months; the lack of replicability locally (which sucks for testing and CI/CD), the opaque and limited management options, and the lack of community interest / discussion all turned us off. I think hosted kubernetes was easily the better option for us.

jondubois 9y ago

I agree, hosted Kubernetes is what serverless should have been. The current idea of serverless is a weird, restrictive bandage patch solution designed to hook and trap users. It's only popular because Amazon has poured probably billions of dollars into it and have lobbied their way into many corporations.