3 ms·

AWS Lambdas are bane of my existance. Many of issues I was involved over years*. From issues with performance, deployments, cold start, api gateway integrations

AWS Lambdas are bane of my existance. Many of issues I was involved over years*. From issues with performance, deployments, cold start, api gateway integrations, arbitrary limits or just random failures. Debuging is difficult and whole thing is dog slow. Even today I have two outstanding issues that I need to investigate, lambdas fail to connect to redis and pino not logging correctly response times. Some of that can be blamed for misusing lambdas, but I hate FaaS concept. AWS ECS, google app engine and k8 where you deploy container are imo better and give you more control. Edit not hundreds but probably close to 70 in total.

dd444fgdfg 5y ago
they can be quite usable with something like the Serverless framework. really though, in my opinion that should be a part of the core AWS solution. Lambda itself is otherwise "low level".
- fulafel 5y ago
  A big problem with Serverless in this context is that then you're Serverless which seems to be declining faster than Lambda now. Same for adding other abstractions on top, they're flavour du jour. I agree Lambda is too low level, but it probably also explains its longevity.
- Chyzwar 5y ago
  Serverless framework is even worse. Debugging anything in serverless framework is hell. There is no way to print a fully generated CloudFormation template. In many, you need to brute force the solution by committing and re-deploying. The name “serverless framework” is idiotic and not googleable. It is like naming server side framework “api framework”. In my opinion, Lambda should only be for small, event based functionality between services. People that sold the idea of full-fledged app development to clueless architecture astronauts should have a special place in hell.
  - Dunedan 5y ago
    > There is no way to print a fully generated CloudFormation template. I'm no fan of Serverless Framework either, but accessing the generated CloudFormation template which will be used to deploy the AWS resources is actually pretty straightforward: sls package cat .serverless/cloudformation-template-update-stack.json

dd444fgdfg 5y ago

they can be quite usable with something like the Serverless framework. really though, in my opinion that should be a part of the core AWS solution. Lambda itself is otherwise "low level".

fulafel 5y ago
A big problem with Serverless in this context is that then you're Serverless which seems to be declining faster than Lambda now. Same for adding other abstractions on top, they're flavour du jour. I agree Lambda is too low level, but it probably also explains its longevity.
Chyzwar 5y ago
Serverless framework is even worse. Debugging anything in serverless framework is hell. There is no way to print a fully generated CloudFormation template. In many, you need to brute force the solution by committing and re-deploying. The name “serverless framework” is idiotic and not googleable. It is like naming server side framework “api framework”. In my opinion, Lambda should only be for small, event based functionality between services. People that sold the idea of full-fledged app development to clueless architecture astronauts should have a special place in hell.
- Dunedan 5y ago
  > There is no way to print a fully generated CloudFormation template. I'm no fan of Serverless Framework either, but accessing the generated CloudFormation template which will be used to deploy the AWS resources is actually pretty straightforward: sls package cat .serverless/cloudformation-template-update-stack.json