3 ms·

> It comes to about 16 million invocations per day. I'd guess obly a handful of their customers have this load on Lambda. I'm not so sure about that. Without g

> It comes to about 16 million invocations per day. I'd guess obly a handful of their customers have this load on Lambda. I'm not so sure about that. Without going into details, I have a project which calls a single lambda around 500 invocations/minute, give or take. That's already close to 1 million invocations per day. We're talking about 30€/month worth of lambdas.

moralestapia 4y ago
That's weird, Amazon's own calculator estimates $300/mo on that. But perhaps you're somehow getting a 90% discount. Also, it's $100k for 6 billion GB/s. Unless you're spending that you won't see any savings.
- arinlen 4y ago
  > That's weird, Amazon's own calculator estimates $300/mo on that. Nah, you're just doing your math all wrong. In the very least you failed to look at how you're setting the parameters in the calculator. Give it another go and check what 500 requests per minute cost you, and play a bit with the parameters. > But perhaps you're somehow getting a 90% discount. Naw, no discount. You just didn't paid attention to your back-of-the-napkin math and exercised zero critical thinking. Lambdas are cheap like that for those who use it for what they're supposed to do: high-volume event handlers, or low-volume compute-intensive tasks. Think about it for a second: if handling 500 requests/minute really cost you $300/month, don't you think it would be far better to just provision a EC2 instance?
  - moralestapia 4y ago
    If your lambdas are like 10ms total time and have a very low memory footprint, sure, I used settings that I felt were adequate for an average web service. But anyway, that kind of ok proves my point even more, because now you need a much higher rps to benefit from the discounted tiers. >if handling 500 requests/minute really cost you $300/month, don't you think it would be far better to just provision a EC2 instance? Yes, hence why I stated that very few customers IRL would benefit from this. If you're already doing $100,000k/mo on Lambda fees, for sure you can switch to better and much cheaper infra.

moralestapia 4y ago

That's weird, Amazon's own calculator estimates $300/mo on that. But perhaps you're somehow getting a 90% discount. Also, it's $100k for 6 billion GB/s. Unless you're spending that you won't see any savings.

arinlen 4y ago
> That's weird, Amazon's own calculator estimates $300/mo on that. Nah, you're just doing your math all wrong. In the very least you failed to look at how you're setting the parameters in the calculator. Give it another go and check what 500 requests per minute cost you, and play a bit with the parameters. > But perhaps you're somehow getting a 90% discount. Naw, no discount. You just didn't paid attention to your back-of-the-napkin math and exercised zero critical thinking. Lambdas are cheap like that for those who use it for what they're supposed to do: high-volume event handlers, or low-volume compute-intensive tasks. Think about it for a second: if handling 500 requests/minute really cost you $300/month, don't you think it would be far better to just provision a EC2 instance?
- moralestapia 4y ago
  If your lambdas are like 10ms total time and have a very low memory footprint, sure, I used settings that I felt were adequate for an average web service. But anyway, that kind of ok proves my point even more, because now you need a much higher rps to benefit from the discounted tiers. >if handling 500 requests/minute really cost you $300/month, don't you think it would be far better to just provision a EC2 instance? Yes, hence why I stated that very few customers IRL would benefit from this. If you're already doing $100,000k/mo on Lambda fees, for sure you can switch to better and much cheaper infra.