3 ms·
> I think opsless would be a better term Considering that 'serverless' actually needs a more experienced and expensive ops team, no, it really wouldn't.
by otabdeveloper4 7y ago
> I think opsless would be a better term
Considering that 'serverless' actually needs a more experienced and expensive ops team, no, it really wouldn't.
- Dunedan 7y agoWhile I agree that opsless isn't a fitting name, how do you come to the conclusion that a serverless architecture requires more ops resources than a traditional one? From my experiences the opposite is the case: The amount of time spent on operating a serverless architecture is much smaller than having to care about the underlying servers as well. A pretty good example are all the nasty OS-related security vulnerabilities. Instead of patching hundreds of servers, like in the old days, with serverless applications you don't need to do anything. Even better: Your provider (at least if it's one of the major ones) has probably already patched these vulnerabilities, before they get published.