4 ms·

Seems like a better argument for not using FaaS after reading it all. It's also filled with "once you've done X Y is simple!" like: > Once you have the templa

Seems like a better argument for not using FaaS after reading it all. It's also filled with "once you've done X Y is simple!" like: > Once you have the template ready, you can simply deploy your code by running: serverless deploy which is true for all automatable tasks. The same can be said for any VM or shared hosting.

unethical_ban 7y ago
That completely misses the point of FaaS. Devs don't want to manage VMs. Patching, gold loads, SSH configs, k8s, so on. You write code, you deploy, and you pay only when the function executes. It scales as much as you want it to, as much as it needs to, and quicker even than EC2. There are very clear benefits to FaaS. It is certainly not for everyone, esp. if you already have a well functioning deployment pipeline.
- brintnc 7y ago
  > Devs don't want to manage VMs. Patching, gold loads, SSH configs, k8s, so on Which devs? I'm a developer and I enjoy most of these things. Working with k8s is a pleasure, managing VMs can be quite simple (and more often than not, is). I don't do much patching, but I "SSH" into our k8s pods quite frequently. I've never thought, gee I wish I had a lambda to simplify this. I know I _also_ don't represent all devs, but I'm never seen this comment made outside of it being an argument supporting FAAS.
  - rumanator 7y ago
    I would add that the hard parts of working with Kubernetes is setting up ingress controllers and persistent volumes, but that's precisely the type of problems that any Kubernetes service provider takes care for you.
  - burn1238a 7y ago
    I think the more important part is the laundry list of frameworks, cloud services, etc. to manage, not the pleasure you draw from working with the services themselves. If you get minimal returns for managing 5 extra services, it doesn't make sense most of the time. I do agree though that the cost should not be the thing the poster brags about with this architecture. It's the tradeoff between simplicity, cost, and functionality.
  - erikerikson 7y ago
    K8s can be great but at a largish retailer (billions in yearly revenue) it took a team of engineers on the better end of the company's talent pool to manage the clusters. Those salaries can buy a lot of serverless service usage and according to uptime metrics better reliability. On top of it the teams adopting serverless generally had higher velocity. At scale there were a few use cases that needed to economize but... Largely not.
  - unethical_ban 7y ago
    I would argue "most devs other than you". I work in the finance industry. Most devs don't seem to know or care about IAM, proper network security, or keeping VMs and container images up to date. IAM in AWS is by no means "easy" but when you get it right, it's pretty damned good.
rumanator 7y ago
> Seems like a better argument for not using FaaS after reading it all. To me the main beneficiaries of all FaaS offerings are actually the service providers themselves, as they can make better use of their existing capacity and at the same time charge a hefty premium for the service. I'm yet to see a single convincing usage of AWS Lambdas that makes economical and technical sense.

unethical_ban 7y ago

That completely misses the point of FaaS. Devs don't want to manage VMs. Patching, gold loads, SSH configs, k8s, so on. You write code, you deploy, and you pay only when the function executes. It scales as much as you want it to, as much as it needs to, and quicker even than EC2. There are very clear benefits to FaaS. It is certainly not for everyone, esp. if you already have a well functioning deployment pipeline.

brintnc 7y ago
> Devs don't want to manage VMs. Patching, gold loads, SSH configs, k8s, so on Which devs? I'm a developer and I enjoy most of these things. Working with k8s is a pleasure, managing VMs can be quite simple (and more often than not, is). I don't do much patching, but I "SSH" into our k8s pods quite frequently. I've never thought, gee I wish I had a lambda to simplify this. I know I _also_ don't represent all devs, but I'm never seen this comment made outside of it being an argument supporting FAAS.
- rumanator 7y ago
  I would add that the hard parts of working with Kubernetes is setting up ingress controllers and persistent volumes, but that's precisely the type of problems that any Kubernetes service provider takes care for you.
- burn1238a 7y ago
  I think the more important part is the laundry list of frameworks, cloud services, etc. to manage, not the pleasure you draw from working with the services themselves. If you get minimal returns for managing 5 extra services, it doesn't make sense most of the time. I do agree though that the cost should not be the thing the poster brags about with this architecture. It's the tradeoff between simplicity, cost, and functionality.
- erikerikson 7y ago
  K8s can be great but at a largish retailer (billions in yearly revenue) it took a team of engineers on the better end of the company's talent pool to manage the clusters. Those salaries can buy a lot of serverless service usage and according to uptime metrics better reliability. On top of it the teams adopting serverless generally had higher velocity. At scale there were a few use cases that needed to economize but... Largely not.
- unethical_ban 7y ago
  I would argue "most devs other than you". I work in the finance industry. Most devs don't seem to know or care about IAM, proper network security, or keeping VMs and container images up to date. IAM in AWS is by no means "easy" but when you get it right, it's pretty damned good.

rumanator 7y ago

> Seems like a better argument for not using FaaS after reading it all. To me the main beneficiaries of all FaaS offerings are actually the service providers themselves, as they can make better use of their existing capacity and at the same time charge a hefty premium for the service. I'm yet to see a single convincing usage of AWS Lambdas that makes economical and technical sense.