4 ms·
I have mixed feelings about this and I don't have enough experience to label on method better than the other. Lambdas basically require zero maintenance. SQS r
by nickthemagicman 8y ago
I have mixed feelings about this and I don't have enough experience to label on method better than the other.
Lambdas basically require zero maintenance. SQS requires zero maintenance. EC2 load balancer is zero maintenance. And the setup is trivial too and there's no migration time down the line.If you start off with native cloud for everything you can keep your maintenance and setup costs down drastically.
However, a lot can be done with the old school unsexy tech.
So I'm mixed.
- dr01d 8y agoZero maintenance? What about standing up multiple environments for staging, prod? Sharing secrets ,keys, and env vars? Deployments? Logging? No migration time down the line? I'm pretty sure GCP, Azure don't have Lambda, SQS, or EC2 load balancers so you absolutely will have migration time if you have to retool your implementation to switch cloud providers or products.
- nickthemagicman 8y agoYou make really good points about that. The classic things do migrate providers the easiest of all. I've just found in my experience maintaining a web server or a database server, keeping security in mind, upgrades, scaling, etc. is alot more work than simply spinning up RDS and a Lambda with API gateway. Or even hosting static sites on s3 or Netlify. Like I said I don't know enough to say one is better. Also, is your name Jason?
- nickthemagicman 8y agoI think we may have worked together in the past. Lol