3 ms·

I think if you're scaling the company to the $100+ m revenue range you'll be able to find a team that can handle either VPS, Lambdas, both or whatever else is r

I think if you're scaling the company to the $100+ m revenue range you'll be able to find a team that can handle either VPS, Lambdas, both or whatever else is required. It really depends on what it is that you're actually, you know, doing.

renewiltord 5y ago
I think that's a bit facile. What you're actually able to do is principally a function of your agility and I think a business's choice of tech impacts that. But far be it from me to prescribe. I think these things make us more agile and you think your things make you more capable. May the market favour the approach it does.
- recuter 5y ago
  AWS has this way of making things more approachable. It is a subtle trap. Before lambda running a VPS was not considered rocket science. It may or may not come with scaling issues, depending on your actual application and the architecture. Lambda lets you get going quicker but comes with its own idiosyncrasies, don't get lulled into a false sense of security. You're going to end up with a devops guy either way and they'll be able to handle either scenario. Which one you should pick really really depends. But, all things being equal, it is better to shoot yourself in the foot than having AWS shoot you in the foot. You gave your own counter-example. NomadList has a simple app, Lambda is the wrong choice for him. BBC link tells me their thing is so trivial it is moot - whatever floats their boat. If I was doing some complicated EMR in BigCorp with many departments and stakeholders, slinging millions of files around S3 I'd pick lambda. If I am setting up ad servers I would not pick Lambda because it is latency sensitive. 'etc. Get yourself a devops guy and a proper architect and game it all out. Think of your devops guy not as a server administrator but an advance AI that accelerates the velocity of your team to new peaks of productivity. They are not only debugging their code in production at 3am but your org processes.

renewiltord 5y ago

I think that's a bit facile. What you're actually able to do is principally a function of your agility and I think a business's choice of tech impacts that. But far be it from me to prescribe. I think these things make us more agile and you think your things make you more capable. May the market favour the approach it does.

recuter 5y ago
AWS has this way of making things more approachable. It is a subtle trap. Before lambda running a VPS was not considered rocket science. It may or may not come with scaling issues, depending on your actual application and the architecture. Lambda lets you get going quicker but comes with its own idiosyncrasies, don't get lulled into a false sense of security. You're going to end up with a devops guy either way and they'll be able to handle either scenario. Which one you should pick really really depends. But, all things being equal, it is better to shoot yourself in the foot than having AWS shoot you in the foot. You gave your own counter-example. NomadList has a simple app, Lambda is the wrong choice for him. BBC link tells me their thing is so trivial it is moot - whatever floats their boat. If I was doing some complicated EMR in BigCorp with many departments and stakeholders, slinging millions of files around S3 I'd pick lambda. If I am setting up ad servers I would not pick Lambda because it is latency sensitive. 'etc. Get yourself a devops guy and a proper architect and game it all out. Think of your devops guy not as a server administrator but an advance AI that accelerates the velocity of your team to new peaks of productivity. They are not only debugging their code in production at 3am but your org processes.