4 ms·
> Above free tier AWS Lambdas are terribly expensive when compared with EC2 alone. You're charged per RAM*time, you're charged per concurrent execution, and if
by zapnuk 4y ago
> Above free tier AWS Lambdas are terribly expensive when compared with EC2 alone. You're charged per RAM*time, you're charged per concurrent execution, and if your Lambda times out you have to pay for the re-execution.
They are dirt cheap for many use-cases where you application only runs a few times a day/hour and you need ad-hoc scalable performance. For example processing/creation of csv-reports - which is a common task in my organization.
- arinlen 4y ago> They are dirt cheap for many use-cases where you application only runs a few times a day/hour and you need ad-hoc scalable performance. If your app consists of running a quick cron job a couple of times per day, you do not have much of an app to begin with. If you are already paying for EC2, running those short-lived cron jobs in any one of those instances already adds zero cost. The main beneficiary of AWS Lambdas is AWS itself. It charges a huge premium for what essentially amounts to spare cycles in its infrastructure, and in the process ties up clients to a proprietary solution.
- solatic 4y ago> If you are already paying for EC2, running those short-lived cron jobs in any one of those instances already adds zero cost. Now you have a scheduling/orchestration concern. Kubernetes was built to address that kind of concern. The thread is filled with people bemoaning the cost of running Kubernetes. > The main beneficiary of AWS Lambdas is AWS itself. It charges a huge premium for what essentially amounts to spare cycles in its infrastructure, and in the process ties up clients to a proprietary solution. And as a result, we (the customers) don't have to pay for infrastructure that would otherwise be idle. Why can't it be a win-win?