5 ms·

> 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 t

> 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.
      - scarface74 7y ago
        Yes Aurora Serverless is a distinct offering. Regular Aurora you have a certain server of a certain size. Aurora Serverless autoscales - just like lambda.
        rumanator 7y ago
        > Yes Aurora Serverless is a distinct offering. Again, you're quite (and patently) wrong. Aurora Serverless is quite bluntly a configuration of AWS Aurora to add autoscaling to AWS Aurora instances. https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless.how-it-works.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide... > Aurora Serverless autoscales - just like lambda. If you're confused to the point of confounding autoscaling with serverless then I'm afraid there is no point to continue this discussion. You're just underlining the fact that "serverless" is a fad being mindlessly disseminated by clueless proponents.
        scarface74 7y ago

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.
    - scarface74 7y ago
      Yes Aurora Serverless is a distinct offering. Regular Aurora you have a certain server of a certain size. Aurora Serverless autoscales - just like lambda.
      - rumanator 7y ago
        > Yes Aurora Serverless is a distinct offering. Again, you're quite (and patently) wrong. Aurora Serverless is quite bluntly a configuration of AWS Aurora to add autoscaling to AWS Aurora instances. https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ https://aws.amazon.com/rds/aurora/serverless/ https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide/aurora-serverless.how-it-works.html https://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonRDS/latest/AuroraUserGuide... > Aurora Serverless autoscales - just like lambda. If you're confused to the point of confounding autoscaling with serverless then I'm afraid there is no point to continue this discussion. You're just underlining the fact that "serverless" is a fad being mindlessly disseminated by clueless proponents.
        scarface74 7y ago