4 ms·
If you're already "serverless" (or want to be), it's not that easy to just "add a process". Usually if you're running a process, you're maintaining one or more
by l_t 8y ago
If you're already "serverless" (or want to be), it's not that easy to just "add a process". Usually if you're running a process, you're maintaining one or more virtual servers, which can be a lot more operational overhead than a Lambda.
Having said that, I agree that there seems to be an inordinate amount of effort/thought going into keeping Lambdas "warm" (i.e. always running).
I think the prevalence of these hijinks indicates that AWS Lambda should consider adding a "keep running" option that ensure the particular function is always "warm", but costs a bit more.
- golangnews 8y agoIt seems that'd be too expensive for AWS for a free tier. I really like the idea of serverless, it just doesnt seem to live up to the promise in its current implementations. Are they spinning up a server per function?
- kthejoker2 8y agoAzure Functions offer an Always On option under a premium tier of Azure App Service but I don't know be that'd I call that just "a bit more", especially at scale. Might as well containerize it and accept the overhead of some maintenance to ensure the lowest cost guaranteed availability and performance.