4 ms·

Why would I split, write, and deploy an vendor cloud function for every cloud provider when Docker moves between them? My team ditched serverless functions. We

Why would I split, write, and deploy an vendor cloud function for every cloud provider when Docker moves between them? My team ditched serverless functions. We're better off without them.

thinkloop 9y ago
Do you manually manage the infrastructure (keeping instances hot/cold, updates, scaling, etc.)? If so that's a lot to consider.
- electricEmu 9y ago
  Containers are generally managed similar to serverless. AWS drains connections and workloads on container deployments. I set the same rules to scale either. Containers offer flexibility that serverless doesn't for implementing hot/cold, blue/green, n running with n+1, etc. So, additional flexibility with the same considerstions.
  - phamilton 9y ago
    Lambda support blue/green and all sorts of flexible stuff: aws lambda update-alias --function-name myfunction --name myalias --routing-config '{"AdditionalVersionWeights" : {"2" : 0.05} }'
mateuszf 9y ago
Because then every single functionality will scale independently as needed. No need for orchestration.
- electricEmu 9y ago
  AWS and Azure offer cloud hosted Docker support that scales independently as needed. Both can orchestrate Docker with similar interfaces to functions. What's the difference? Scaling isn't one.
zapita 9y ago
Wouldn't it be ideal if Docker (and other independent platform vendors) added function support? In my mind "cloud functions" are easily implemented on top of containers. Then we would get the best of both worlds.
- electricEmu 9y ago
  It wouldn't, to me. I've had to answer many questions about delays in serverless functions that didn't come up with Docker. Serverless doesn't have the introspection necessary to answer performance questions. What if Docker supported functions? I'd ask what we gain trading a main loop for only bindings. Similar bindings are made either way. I honestly wish cloud providers would make their core SDKs as easily composable as their serverless offerings.
- aynsof 9y ago
  Have you looked into Cloud Foundry? From my understanding, it can operate like a FaaS provider or like a Docker container scheduler.
- carimura 9y ago
  Exactly. This is the goal of http://FnProject.io http://FnProject.io -- power of containers + simplicity of serverless. No managed service yet but there will be, and anyone can run the bits to create a service of their own. I do agree with Paul about containers having a greater update surface area, but we think this is also solvable and doesn't need to be a responsibility of the developer either.
- gnahckire 9y ago
  Check out this project: https://github.com/openfaas/faas https://github.com/openfaas/faas
- WorldMaker 9y ago
  The Azure Functions (Azure's equivalent to AWS Lambda) Host is open source: https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-host/ https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-host/ There's probably enough there to bootstrap a container version.

Why would I split, write, and deploy an vendor cloud function for every cloud provider when Docker moves between them? My team ditched serverless functions. We're better off without them.

thinkloop 9y ago

Do you manually manage the infrastructure (keeping instances hot/cold, updates, scaling, etc.)? If so that's a lot to consider.

electricEmu 9y ago
Containers are generally managed similar to serverless. AWS drains connections and workloads on container deployments. I set the same rules to scale either. Containers offer flexibility that serverless doesn't for implementing hot/cold, blue/green, n running with n+1, etc. So, additional flexibility with the same considerstions.
- phamilton 9y ago
  Lambda support blue/green and all sorts of flexible stuff: aws lambda update-alias --function-name myfunction --name myalias --routing-config '{"AdditionalVersionWeights" : {"2" : 0.05} }'

mateuszf 9y ago

Because then every single functionality will scale independently as needed. No need for orchestration.

electricEmu 9y ago
AWS and Azure offer cloud hosted Docker support that scales independently as needed. Both can orchestrate Docker with similar interfaces to functions. What's the difference? Scaling isn't one.

zapita 9y ago

Wouldn't it be ideal if Docker (and other independent platform vendors) added function support? In my mind "cloud functions" are easily implemented on top of containers. Then we would get the best of both worlds.

electricEmu 9y ago
It wouldn't, to me. I've had to answer many questions about delays in serverless functions that didn't come up with Docker. Serverless doesn't have the introspection necessary to answer performance questions. What if Docker supported functions? I'd ask what we gain trading a main loop for only bindings. Similar bindings are made either way. I honestly wish cloud providers would make their core SDKs as easily composable as their serverless offerings.
aynsof 9y ago
Have you looked into Cloud Foundry? From my understanding, it can operate like a FaaS provider or like a Docker container scheduler.
carimura 9y ago
Exactly. This is the goal of http://FnProject.io http://FnProject.io -- power of containers + simplicity of serverless. No managed service yet but there will be, and anyone can run the bits to create a service of their own. I do agree with Paul about containers having a greater update surface area, but we think this is also solvable and doesn't need to be a responsibility of the developer either.
gnahckire 9y ago
Check out this project: https://github.com/openfaas/faas https://github.com/openfaas/faas
WorldMaker 9y ago
The Azure Functions (Azure's equivalent to AWS Lambda) Host is open source: https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-host/ https://github.com/Azure/azure-functions-host/ There's probably enough there to bootstrap a container version.