6 ms·

That's pretty much the definition of managed hosting.

scarface74 7y ago
When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc.
- vidarh 7y ago
  Managed hosting is used in at least two different ways: * As a synonym for dedicated hosting. E.g. you rent a machine, and run what you want on it. And have to patch stuff etc. * As a separate tier of service above dedicated hosting where the hosting provider is responsible for running the services on the machine. Some managed hosting providers will take responsibility for scaling too, though often it will be a semi-manual process. Managed hosting in this second sense is to serverless what dedicated hosting is to "regular" cloud instances.
  - gravitas 7y ago
    You might even toss in running managed services externally in the second definition, for example DNS for your own domain - pretty much every service small to large offers a DNS hosting service with your account, typically at no charge. Otherwise, you'd have to run your own server, etc.
- rumanator 7y ago
  > When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc. Your comment did nothing to address the point, which is that your definiiton of "serverless" is actually just a buzzword used to refer to the old as the web commercial practice of managed hosting.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So was “running in the cloud” just a buzzword? Serverless is not just “managed hosting” in the cgi-bin since - serverless implies there is no server to manage and it’s for all intents and purposes “infinitely scalable”. For instance, Amazon’s hosted versions of Mysql, Postgres, Sql Server, etc are not what they consider “Serverless” you still have to size it appropriately and if your needs increase, have to move to a larger server. You have to worry about CPU utilization, memory utilization etc. DynamoDB is considered “serverless” because you don’t have to manage any of that. The same is the difference between S3 and provisioning storage that you attach to your VM.
    - rumanator 7y ago
      > So was “running in the cloud” just a buzzword? Please don't digress. The questions regarding you assertions on "serverless" don't change or are addressed with your attempt to divert attentions to other buzzwords. > Serverless is not just “managed hosting” in the cgi-bin since - serverless implies there is no server to manage and it’s for all intents and purposes “infinitely scalable”. You're running in circles by trying to pin a buzzword on managed hosting. > For instance, Amazon’s hosted versions of Mysql, Postgres, Sql Server, etc are not what they consider “Serverless” I wouldn't use AWS as an example of coherent classification, as AWS's database offerings have multiple ovelapping concerns, including an overreaching gray area of "serverless-ness". See for example Amazon RDS and Amazon Aurora.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        There is no “overreaching area”. Amazon Aurora falls under RDS along with all of their other database offerings. No one on HN would accept an argument that technology is “confusing” that the poster didn’t take time to learn unless it involves AWS.
        rumanator 7y ago
        > There is no “overreaching area”. Amazon Aurora falls under RDS along with all of their other database offerings. You mean AWS Aurora serverless? https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ You're underlining the failing of buzzword-driven development. > No one on HN would accept an argument that technology is “confusing” Good. No one other than yourself ever made the mistake of doing so. If you have a hard time arguing the facts then refrain from making up fiction.

When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc.

vidarh 7y ago
Managed hosting is used in at least two different ways: * As a synonym for dedicated hosting. E.g. you rent a machine, and run what you want on it. And have to patch stuff etc. * As a separate tier of service above dedicated hosting where the hosting provider is responsible for running the services on the machine. Some managed hosting providers will take responsibility for scaling too, though often it will be a semi-manual process. Managed hosting in this second sense is to serverless what dedicated hosting is to "regular" cloud instances.
- gravitas 7y ago
  You might even toss in running managed services externally in the second definition, for example DNS for your own domain - pretty much every service small to large offers a DNS hosting service with your account, typically at no charge. Otherwise, you'd have to run your own server, etc.
rumanator 7y ago
> When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc. Your comment did nothing to address the point, which is that your definiiton of "serverless" is actually just a buzzword used to refer to the old as the web commercial practice of managed hosting.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So was “running in the cloud” just a buzzword? Serverless is not just “managed hosting” in the cgi-bin since - serverless implies there is no server to manage and it’s for all intents and purposes “infinitely scalable”. For instance, Amazon’s hosted versions of Mysql, Postgres, Sql Server, etc are not what they consider “Serverless” you still have to size it appropriately and if your needs increase, have to move to a larger server. You have to worry about CPU utilization, memory utilization etc. DynamoDB is considered “serverless” because you don’t have to manage any of that. The same is the difference between S3 and provisioning storage that you attach to your VM.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    > So was “running in the cloud” just a buzzword? Please don't digress. The questions regarding you assertions on "serverless" don't change or are addressed with your attempt to divert attentions to other buzzwords. > Serverless is not just “managed hosting” in the cgi-bin since - serverless implies there is no server to manage and it’s for all intents and purposes “infinitely scalable”. You're running in circles by trying to pin a buzzword on managed hosting. > For instance, Amazon’s hosted versions of Mysql, Postgres, Sql Server, etc are not what they consider “Serverless” I wouldn't use AWS as an example of coherent classification, as AWS's database offerings have multiple ovelapping concerns, including an overreaching gray area of "serverless-ness". See for example Amazon RDS and Amazon Aurora.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      There is no “overreaching area”. Amazon Aurora falls under RDS along with all of their other database offerings. No one on HN would accept an argument that technology is “confusing” that the poster didn’t take time to learn unless it involves AWS.
      - rumanator 7y ago
        > There is no “overreaching area”. Amazon Aurora falls under RDS along with all of their other database offerings. You mean AWS Aurora serverless? https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ You're underlining the failing of buzzword-driven development. > No one on HN would accept an argument that technology is “confusing” Good. No one other than yourself ever made the mistake of doing so. If you have a hard time arguing the facts then refrain from making up fiction.