4 ms·

Mild correction, but AWS lambdas are limited to 15 minutes of execution time as of October 2018 [0]. Prior to that, they were limited to 5 minutes. > One issue

Mild correction, but AWS lambdas are limited to 15 minutes of execution time as of October 2018 [0]. Prior to that, they were limited to 5 minutes. > One issue with lambda/serverless is... when you need more concurrent instances running... Lambda can have 1,000-3,000 concurrent burst invocations for most of the popular regions and 500 for others[1]. Are you saying that's not enough? [0] https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/10/aws-lambda-supports-functions-that-can-run-up-to-15-minutes/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/whats-new/2018/10/aws-lambd... [1] https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/scaling.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/latest/dg/scaling.html

chucky_z 7y ago
I recently had a use-case where that wasn't enough, and AWS would not give us enough concurrent invocations either.
sten 7y ago
I've run into this problem. But I believe the parent was referring to the situation where new lambdas spin up and aren't immediately ready to respond to invocations. The delay can be significant in some cases though almost immeasurable in aggregate.
skywhopper 7y ago
3000 is not really all that many, given the prime use cases for Lambdas. Though at that point you'll probably be running into lots of other issues as well.
chadash 7y ago
> Mild correction, but AWS lambdas are limited to 15 minutes of execution Whoops that's what I meant > Lambda can have 1,000-3,000 concurrent burst invocations for most of the popular regions and 500 for others[1]. Are you saying that's not enough? No, that's plenty for most use cases. I'm referring to "cold starts". When you haven't used a lambda function in a while, it takes a few seconds for it to get going. But when you hit it a second time, it responds more quickly.