3 ms·
> For Fargate, this meant deploying 50 instances of my container with pretty beefy settings — 8 GB of memory and 4 full CPU units per container instance. This
by Chyzwar 8y ago
> For Fargate, this meant deploying 50 instances of my container with pretty beefy settings — 8 GB of memory and 4 full CPU units per container instance.
This is for hello world application. This is insane. Single EC2 HVM instance would have better performance.
> Something that is 2x the cost, and 10% 'less performant' - but is very easy to use, requires minimal devops focus, and can enable feature iteration and easy scale - this is what most growing companies need.
Cost is close to 50x and Fargate is not necessarily lower overhead. Terraform + Packer + EC2 vs ECS + Docker + Fargate is pretty the same for me. You still need to build images and manage the deployment lifecycle.
- sonnyblarney 8y agoWhy would you use " Terraform + Packer + EC2 vs ECS + Docker + Fargate" if you can just use AWS Lambda?
- bdcravens 8y agoBecause it's never just Lambda. It's the toolchain you use for deployment and orchestration, routing, etc. (eg, "Serverless Framework + Lambda + API Gateway")
- sonnyblarney 8y agoWell 'serverless framework' really is just node.js or java. That's likely going to be used anyhow. Lambda itself doesn't really take maintenance. Routing can be done in the app, you only need one - or a small number of 'endpoints' so messing with API gateway can be minimized. You can run any sized app with a single API Gateway endpoint, and a single lambda, on a simple node.js setup. I can't see any reason to use containers on EC2 or containers on Amazon's container service until an app gains quite a degree of sophistication.
- Chyzwar 8y agoCloudFormation, API gateway, AIM, Secret Manager. Production application requires much more than just a lambda. It is better to start from something more structured than shell scripts.