5 ms·

It matters for things like AWS Lambda

capableweb 5y ago
If you're out after performance you wouldn't use AWS Lambda or even AWS at all. Go for dedicated hosting, better performance and cheaper.
- Koiwai 5y ago
  Server management is a significant part of cost. Why would cloud provider be a business in the first place, do you think?
  - capableweb 5y ago
    Sure, it's up to you what you optimize for. Easy and fast to scale vertically or better numbers in terms of latency/through-output? With the former, go for cloud. For the latter, go for dedicated. Want best performance for each buck spent? Again, dedicated.
- rossmohax 5y ago
  If I am already using Lambda because of infrastructure management costs, it is always nice to reduce my bill by using less memory and/or improving response time.
- rualca 5y ago
  > If you're out after performance you wouldn't use AWS Lambda or even AWS at all. That point makes as much sense as complaining that if you were after performance you'd use a Formula1 car and not a Tesla. People who live in the real world and have to do real work need to use real world tools, and one of which is AWS Lambda. Let's put things in perspective: would it make any sense at all to advise a company to not only rewrite a whole application stack from scratch in your pet performant language but also jump head on to some boutique service provider? I mean, who in their right mind would get accountants involved in a goal to shave a few milliseconds over a few gRPC calls? Is a suggestion to improve performance expected to be considered even sane if it requires rewriting everything and change shop?
  - capableweb 5y ago
    > People who live in the real world and have to do real work need to use real world tools, and one of which is AWS Lambda. Another real tool is dedicated servers, something people used before "cloud" and something that people who care about performance still uses. AWS even offers dedicated servers themselves, so not sure why you would need to involve any "boutique service provider". Otherwise you have OVH, Hetzner and a range of others who compete well with AWS on dedicated instances as well, neither I'd say are "boutique". > rewrite a whole application stack from scratch in your pet performant language Not sure where this comes from, which one of these languages are "pet performant (SIC) languages"? > who in their right mind would get accountants involved in a goal to shave a few milliseconds over a few gRPC calls Hmm, unless the accountants are involved somehow in the API design (not sure what you're building), I don't know what the accountants have to do with anything here. In the end, AWS and Lambda absolutely does not fit every use case. Depending on your use case, and if it's important a few ms here and there, you chose different solutions. Since this benchmark is about throughoutput, I thought we were discussing the use case of needing the best throughoutput, otherwise this is all off-topic. And with that, I'm just sharing that if that is your focus, you would probably not be using Lambda in the first place, as you'll get very shitty throughoutput and you have to pay a lot, compared to other mature solutions for this that we already had for many many years.
    - Hikikomori 5y ago
      Most instances on AWS get dedicated cpu and memory resources, so noisy neighbors isn't a problem. The difference with metal is that you get the whole box for yourself.
      - capableweb 5y ago
        > Most instances on AWS get dedicated cpu and memory resources, so noisy neighbors isn't a problem First time I heard of that and also doesn't match my own experience using AWS. AWS tends to have a lot of noise from neighbors but might be because of the region I was using. Could you link the official statement you got this from? > The difference with metal is that you get the whole box for yourself. Yes, + you normally avoid virtualization as that can have impact on your performance too. I'm glad we agree there is a difference that is worth mentioning when it comes to performance :)

If you're out after performance you wouldn't use AWS Lambda or even AWS at all. Go for dedicated hosting, better performance and cheaper.

Koiwai 5y ago
Server management is a significant part of cost. Why would cloud provider be a business in the first place, do you think?
- capableweb 5y ago
  Sure, it's up to you what you optimize for. Easy and fast to scale vertically or better numbers in terms of latency/through-output? With the former, go for cloud. For the latter, go for dedicated. Want best performance for each buck spent? Again, dedicated.
rossmohax 5y ago
If I am already using Lambda because of infrastructure management costs, it is always nice to reduce my bill by using less memory and/or improving response time.
rualca 5y ago
> If you're out after performance you wouldn't use AWS Lambda or even AWS at all. That point makes as much sense as complaining that if you were after performance you'd use a Formula1 car and not a Tesla. People who live in the real world and have to do real work need to use real world tools, and one of which is AWS Lambda. Let's put things in perspective: would it make any sense at all to advise a company to not only rewrite a whole application stack from scratch in your pet performant language but also jump head on to some boutique service provider? I mean, who in their right mind would get accountants involved in a goal to shave a few milliseconds over a few gRPC calls? Is a suggestion to improve performance expected to be considered even sane if it requires rewriting everything and change shop?
- capableweb 5y ago
  > People who live in the real world and have to do real work need to use real world tools, and one of which is AWS Lambda. Another real tool is dedicated servers, something people used before "cloud" and something that people who care about performance still uses. AWS even offers dedicated servers themselves, so not sure why you would need to involve any "boutique service provider". Otherwise you have OVH, Hetzner and a range of others who compete well with AWS on dedicated instances as well, neither I'd say are "boutique". > rewrite a whole application stack from scratch in your pet performant language Not sure where this comes from, which one of these languages are "pet performant (SIC) languages"? > who in their right mind would get accountants involved in a goal to shave a few milliseconds over a few gRPC calls Hmm, unless the accountants are involved somehow in the API design (not sure what you're building), I don't know what the accountants have to do with anything here. In the end, AWS and Lambda absolutely does not fit every use case. Depending on your use case, and if it's important a few ms here and there, you chose different solutions. Since this benchmark is about throughoutput, I thought we were discussing the use case of needing the best throughoutput, otherwise this is all off-topic. And with that, I'm just sharing that if that is your focus, you would probably not be using Lambda in the first place, as you'll get very shitty throughoutput and you have to pay a lot, compared to other mature solutions for this that we already had for many many years.
  - Hikikomori 5y ago
    Most instances on AWS get dedicated cpu and memory resources, so noisy neighbors isn't a problem. The difference with metal is that you get the whole box for yourself.
    - capableweb 5y ago
      > Most instances on AWS get dedicated cpu and memory resources, so noisy neighbors isn't a problem First time I heard of that and also doesn't match my own experience using AWS. AWS tends to have a lot of noise from neighbors but might be because of the region I was using. Could you link the official statement you got this from? > The difference with metal is that you get the whole box for yourself. Yes, + you normally avoid virtualization as that can have impact on your performance too. I'm glad we agree there is a difference that is worth mentioning when it comes to performance :)