4 ms·
Yes, announced today you can go up to 10gb/6 vCPUs: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-for-aws-lambda-functions-with-up-to-10-gb-of-memory-and-6-vcpus/ https:
by munns 6y ago
Yes, announced today you can go up to 10gb/6 vCPUs: https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-for-aws-lambda-functions-with-up-to-10-gb-of-memory-and-6-vcpus/ https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/aws/new-for-aws-lambda-function...
- groundthrower 6y agoOkay, nice. And if I would like like 32 vCpus? Having an application today that has a huge degree of parallelism, but utilizing an external cloud provider that offers dedicated machines with very affordable pricing. Would really like to use lambdas instead though.
- munns 6y agoInteresting. Not possible today. We'd still encourage paralyzation up through multiple concurrency of functions being executed.
- JoshTriplett 6y agoI would love to see this as well: having 96-vCPU Lambda instances (or instances that match the biggest C-family instance you have) would solve a lot of problems for me. The execution model of Lambda (start a runtime, handle requests, AWS handles pool management) feels much easier to use than managing a pool. Someone from AWS once commented to me that "if you're ever having to manage a pool rather than letting us manage it, that's a gap in our services".
- chrisweekly 6y ago"paralyzation" -> parallelization, yeah? :)
- munns 6y agoIt was a long day yesterday, thank you :)