6 ms·

> It is important to understand these two different definitions for "serverless". When a database claims to be "serverless", be sure to discern whether they me

by cle 7y ago

> It is important to understand these two different definitions for "serverless". When a database claims to be "serverless", be sure to discern whether they mean "classic serverless" or "neo-serverless". It's really not important to understand that distinction, because this author seems to be the only one making it. Everyone knows what "serverless" means at this point, and it's not an embedded DB.

sgt 7y ago
After this article has been uncovered by HN, that may just be about to change.
0xff00ffee 7y ago
"neo-serverless" LOL GTFOUTTAHERE! Such an arrogant programmer. I see this on HN every now and then: a programmer discovers something and thinks "I bet I'm first to notice this!", then proceeds to invent new lexicon to feel special.
hinkley 7y ago
Meh. If we allow serverless to make REST calls, is accessing a file system any different? I had more trouble with the assertion that the embedded DB would be maintenance-free. I started a top level comment asking for someone to explain how that would work. The part of my brain that protects me from scams is screaming “something for nothing”.
- catalogia 7y ago
  > "I had more trouble with the assertion that the embedded DB would be maintenance-free. I started a top level comment asking for someone to explain how that would work." When is the last time a certed-up DBA had to do any maintenance on your Firefox install's places.sqlite database? That's what's meant by maintenance free; you can reasonably employ sqlite databases on users' computers, without users having the foggiest idea of what a database even is.
skrebbel 7y ago
I agree! Also the cryptography people should stop calling their hobby "crypto", everybody knows crypto means bitcoin and stuff. Snobs. (here's SQLite's "Serverless" page the way it was in 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...)
- yegle 7y ago
  I'm not sure if this comment missed a /s somewhere...
  - mcpeepants 7y ago
    it wouldn't be wrong to include one, but it didn't necessarily need it. the link in parentheses serves the same purpose.
    - skrebbel 7y ago
      nitpick: it would be wrong to include one, because sarcasm isn't sarcasm if you say it's sarcasm. personally i feel like even including the archive.org link was pushing it over the edge :)
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
Exactly. If anything, it seems like the author wants to take the word "embedded", which everyone understands, and somehow redefine it to "serverless" which everyone also understands, and which this is not.
- filleduchaos 7y ago
  Yes, of course, the author took a time machine to 2007 to try and co-opt your buzzword.
mikestew 7y ago
Everyone know that “serverless” anything doesn’t run on a server, be it AWS or Azure instances or what have you. That would be both ironic and silly, like someone used the wrong word or something. Serverless databases and what have you have been around longer than the current batch of folks trying to redefine things (or more charitably, ran out names to call things). Like or not, there is a distinction even if the old definition was before your time.
- cle 7y ago
  Nobody called them serverless DBs, and nobody does. There is a vocal minority of reductionists here on HN who dismiss the accepted definition of serverless because the literal meaning doesn’t make sense. It’s just noise though. “Serverless” does have a specific meaning and it’s not “there are no servers anywhere”. I was around when there was no serverless. Things change, new words arise. Time for us to get with the times.
  - quasarj 7y ago
    nah
  - tonyarkles 7y ago
    > I was around when there was no serverless. We used to call it /cgi-bin/ ;)
  - int_19h 7y ago
    I remember Firebird called "serverless" sometime around 2006, in the same meaning that SQLite uses. It was pretty common terminology for RDBMS.
Animats 7y ago
The "neo-serverless" thing is strange. But then, so is "serverless". "Serverless" systems are just time-shared servers. But only if they use new, cool technology. Shared hosting with vendor managed MySQL doesn't count, apparently.
jiofih 7y ago
This such an air-headed comment to make. You must realize that page describing how SQLite is “serverless” has been up probably longer than your entire adult life. It is important in its context, they are not trying to “redefine” (lol) the term.
- cle 7y ago
  It doesn’t matter. It is not the generally accepted definition of serverless. The meaning of a word is based on how it is generally used, and almost nobody means this when they use the word “serverless”. At this point trying to use the word in this way just creates a bunch of unnecessary confusion. Call it something else so we can move on to more important (and clear) discussions. (Also there are a lot of assumptions and snarky comments in these responses about my age, which is quite rude and pretty elucidating.)
  - PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
    No doubt you're a little surprised that hacker news doesn't contain that many posts about people breaking into computer information systems, amirite?
  - aidenn0 7y ago
    The page was written before that usage of the term serverless existed, and anyone reading it would have known exactly how it was meant. The "neo- vs classical-" note was added in 2018 because the distinction was being made. Is your argument that they should replace "serverless" with "runs without a server?" That seems like a strange position to me.
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    I think hosting providers marketing their managed servers as "serverless" is what has created confusion. Imagine if Uber called itself a "carless" taxi.
  - mbreese 7y ago
    Their usage of serverless predates all of these cloud application offerings. Just because a lot of people in this particular echo chamber like to think of serverless as meaning one thing, there are plenty of others who have been using the same word to mean something different for quite a bit longer. Moreover, the cloud as a service definition isn’t even accurate. There still is a server — it’s just not one the developer has to worry about.
coldtea 7y ago
>Everyone knows what "serverless" means at this point, and it's not an embedded DB. Serverless is a marketing term at this point (as it was when it started). This post brings some welcome definitions and expands it to something that has many of the same attributes but wasn't appreciated as such.
- cle 7y ago
  Serverless refers to platforms with specific and well-understood properties, such as managed servers, autoscaling, usage-based pricing, etc. What parts of SQLite have these properties?
  - ForHackernews 7y ago
    SQLite has specific, well-understood pricing and scaling properties.
    - cnst 7y ago
      This so much! But is it web-scale?! /s
  - mbreese 7y ago
    And for others the word “serverless” literally means without a server. As in... a library. It’s been a well used definition for many years.
  - pnako 7y ago
    In the case of SQLite, it doesn't have a server process. In the case of cloud "serverless" it doesn't have a physical ser-- Wait did you just mention "managed servers"?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

by cle 7y ago

sgt 7y ago

After this article has been uncovered by HN, that may just be about to change.

0xff00ffee 7y ago

"neo-serverless" LOL GTFOUTTAHERE! Such an arrogant programmer. I see this on HN every now and then: a programmer discovers something and thinks "I bet I'm first to notice this!", then proceeds to invent new lexicon to feel special.

hinkley 7y ago

Meh. If we allow serverless to make REST calls, is accessing a file system any different? I had more trouble with the assertion that the embedded DB would be maintenance-free. I started a top level comment asking for someone to explain how that would work. The part of my brain that protects me from scams is screaming “something for nothing”.

catalogia 7y ago
> "I had more trouble with the assertion that the embedded DB would be maintenance-free. I started a top level comment asking for someone to explain how that would work." When is the last time a certed-up DBA had to do any maintenance on your Firefox install's places.sqlite database? That's what's meant by maintenance free; you can reasonably employ sqlite databases on users' computers, without users having the foggiest idea of what a database even is.

skrebbel 7y ago

I agree! Also the cryptography people should stop calling their hobby "crypto", everybody knows crypto means bitcoin and stuff. Snobs. (here's SQLite's "Serverless" page the way it was in 2007: https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlite.org/serverless.html https://web.archive.org/web/20071115173112/https://www.sqlit...)

yegle 7y ago
I'm not sure if this comment missed a /s somewhere...
- mcpeepants 7y ago
  it wouldn't be wrong to include one, but it didn't necessarily need it. the link in parentheses serves the same purpose.
  - skrebbel 7y ago
    nitpick: it would be wrong to include one, because sarcasm isn't sarcasm if you say it's sarcasm. personally i feel like even including the archive.org link was pushing it over the edge :)

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

Exactly. If anything, it seems like the author wants to take the word "embedded", which everyone understands, and somehow redefine it to "serverless" which everyone also understands, and which this is not.

filleduchaos 7y ago
Yes, of course, the author took a time machine to 2007 to try and co-opt your buzzword.

mikestew 7y ago

Everyone know that “serverless” anything doesn’t run on a server, be it AWS or Azure instances or what have you. That would be both ironic and silly, like someone used the wrong word or something. Serverless databases and what have you have been around longer than the current batch of folks trying to redefine things (or more charitably, ran out names to call things). Like or not, there is a distinction even if the old definition was before your time.

cle 7y ago
Nobody called them serverless DBs, and nobody does. There is a vocal minority of reductionists here on HN who dismiss the accepted definition of serverless because the literal meaning doesn’t make sense. It’s just noise though. “Serverless” does have a specific meaning and it’s not “there are no servers anywhere”. I was around when there was no serverless. Things change, new words arise. Time for us to get with the times.
- quasarj 7y ago
  nah
- tonyarkles 7y ago
  > I was around when there was no serverless. We used to call it /cgi-bin/ ;)
- int_19h 7y ago
  I remember Firebird called "serverless" sometime around 2006, in the same meaning that SQLite uses. It was pretty common terminology for RDBMS.

Animats 7y ago

The "neo-serverless" thing is strange. But then, so is "serverless". "Serverless" systems are just time-shared servers. But only if they use new, cool technology. Shared hosting with vendor managed MySQL doesn't count, apparently.

jiofih 7y ago

This such an air-headed comment to make. You must realize that page describing how SQLite is “serverless” has been up probably longer than your entire adult life. It is important in its context, they are not trying to “redefine” (lol) the term.

cle 7y ago
It doesn’t matter. It is not the generally accepted definition of serverless. The meaning of a word is based on how it is generally used, and almost nobody means this when they use the word “serverless”. At this point trying to use the word in this way just creates a bunch of unnecessary confusion. Call it something else so we can move on to more important (and clear) discussions. (Also there are a lot of assumptions and snarky comments in these responses about my age, which is quite rude and pretty elucidating.)
- PaulDavisThe1st 7y ago
  No doubt you're a little surprised that hacker news doesn't contain that many posts about people breaking into computer information systems, amirite?
- aidenn0 7y ago
  The page was written before that usage of the term serverless existed, and anyone reading it would have known exactly how it was meant. The "neo- vs classical-" note was added in 2018 because the distinction was being made. Is your argument that they should replace "serverless" with "runs without a server?" That seems like a strange position to me.
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  I think hosting providers marketing their managed servers as "serverless" is what has created confusion. Imagine if Uber called itself a "carless" taxi.
- mbreese 7y ago
  Their usage of serverless predates all of these cloud application offerings. Just because a lot of people in this particular echo chamber like to think of serverless as meaning one thing, there are plenty of others who have been using the same word to mean something different for quite a bit longer. Moreover, the cloud as a service definition isn’t even accurate. There still is a server — it’s just not one the developer has to worry about.

coldtea 7y ago

>Everyone knows what "serverless" means at this point, and it's not an embedded DB. Serverless is a marketing term at this point (as it was when it started). This post brings some welcome definitions and expands it to something that has many of the same attributes but wasn't appreciated as such.

cle 7y ago
Serverless refers to platforms with specific and well-understood properties, such as managed servers, autoscaling, usage-based pricing, etc. What parts of SQLite have these properties?
- ForHackernews 7y ago
  SQLite has specific, well-understood pricing and scaling properties.
  - cnst 7y ago
    This so much! But is it web-scale?! /s
- mbreese 7y ago
  And for others the word “serverless” literally means without a server. As in... a library. It’s been a well used definition for many years.
- pnako 7y ago
  In the case of SQLite, it doesn't have a server process. In the case of cloud "serverless" it doesn't have a physical ser-- Wait did you just mention "managed servers"?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]