3 ms·

I don't think it's about getting 1ms execution time: It's more like having 300ms vs 301ms execution time be very similar in cost (or however the rounding worke

I don't think it's about getting 1ms execution time: It's more like having 300ms vs 301ms execution time be very similar in cost (or however the rounding worked). The firecracker microvm says startup time is under 125ms, but I have not personally done any benchmarking, though my employer does use firecracker for hosting our CI builders.

nhoughto 6y ago
Ah yeah makes sense. Really interesting that cf workers limit you to 50ms cpu time rather than wallclock time, makes lots of send-then-wait scenarios possible/way cheaper.
- qwtel 6y ago
  actually there appears to be a limit to this. i’ve never been able to perform more than ~50 http requests per invocation, leading me to believe that they are “billed” with 1ms cpu time.
  - nhoughto 6y ago
    Yeah it’s not _just_ 50ms cpu, there are other constraints like 50 sub requests, 6 open connections etc. Still faaairly generous, good luck getting 50 sub requests done in 50ms if you had to measure against wallclock =)