4 ms·
If your site has less < 5,000 users a month, I can't imagine exceeding Lambda's free tier limit. You definitely want to go serverless if budget's a constraint.
by aru 5y ago
If your site has less < 5,000 users a month, I can't imagine exceeding Lambda's free tier limit. You definitely want to go serverless if budget's a constraint.
- vmception 5y agoI'm not going to make a new AWS account to take advantage of the free tier
- 1f60c 5y agoAWS Lambda is (currently) part of the "Always free" tier, with up to 1 million(!) requests per month. (See: https://aws.amazon.com/free/?all-free-tier.sort-by=item.additionalFields.SortRank&all-free-tier.sort-order=asc&awsf.Free%20Tier%20Types=*all&awsf.Free%20Tier%20Categories=*all&all-free-tier.q=Lambda&all-free-tier.q_operator=AND https://aws.amazon.com/free/?all-free-tier.sort-by=item.addi...)
- vmception 5y agowow thanks! the next question is whether I should have just one lambda call that gets my external data and serves it to the clientside requester or if I should have one lambda that does gets my external data on a timed job, caches the response in a database, and a separate lambda that reads the response on AWS it seems the databases are the most expensive thing guess I could also just cross that bridge when I get there, just feel like I could get spammed to a big bill even if I put in some session variables client side this is just a static website trying to power a data visualization on semi-live data