4 ms·
If they had used an ALB instead of API Gateway, the cost might well have been a 2x increase, especially given that would replace the ELB they're already using.
by EwanToo 7y ago
If they had used an ALB instead of API Gateway, the cost might well have been a 2x increase, especially given that would replace the ELB they're already using. The ALB option has it's own caveats though...
- einaregilsson 7y agoYeah, that would have been a much better fit. I just didn't know you could put ALB in front. (Also, a "load balancer" in front of serverless... , and yes I know load balancer do more than load balance.) I mainly went with API Gateway since that's the default setup the serverless framework uses.
- pojzon 7y agoFor AWS it was november 2018 when it was annanced. Still a pretty new thing if you ask me. Many Cloud Architects still dont understand all pros and cons of this solution.
- scarface74 7y agoOne con is that using an application load balancer with lambda restricts you to 1MB requests (and responses?) as opposed to 10 with APIGW. Lambda itself has a 6Mb limit.
- primitivesuave 7y agoOne frustrating caveat of the ALB approach is there is a hard 1 MB limit on both the request and response size, while APIGW has a hard 6 MB limit.