4 ms·
Symptomatic for that business that cost is not mentioned in the whole announcement. I am getting more and more skeptic against all serverless because the cost i
by usr1106 8y ago
Symptomatic for that business that cost is not mentioned in the whole announcement. I am getting more and more skeptic against all serverless because the cost is really difficult to estimate, plan, and manage. Of course if used right some of these services can be cost-efficient. But in real life not all SW is done right...
If you buy a server and run a poorly architectured system on it you note that it does not perform and need to make changes.
If you use serverless and run a poorly architectured system on it you pay and you need to make changes (after someone noted the bill). Yes, there are cost reports but they are not easy to use and understand. With a performance bottleneck the system limits while you are trying to understand the performance measurements. In the cloud case you are paying while trying to understand what is wrong.
Of course in a big corporation money does not matter to a software developer. But in a small company the bill paid to the cloud provider might have a direct impact on the company being able to pay your salary in the near future.
- heavenlyblue 8y ago>> If you buy a server and run a poorly architectured system on it you note that it does not perform and need to make changes. The examples you provide are not equivalent. It’s more like “we have a poorly architected software, so we had to buy 200 dedicated servers, because we didn’t know/couldn’t make it work on 10 of them”. On cloud you could simply update your software and then downscale. Of course you pay more for flexibility, but please stop with those strawmen.