4 ms·

Impressive! But I guess the trade-off of having all that power is the potentially terrifying cost. As you detail in the post, AWS Lambda comes with a default th

Impressive! But I guess the trade-off of having all that power is the potentially terrifying cost. As you detail in the post, AWS Lambda comes with a default throttle (1000 concurrent) which can be adjusted. Is any throttle/limit like that supported, or in the road-map? Only I've been thinking I may want a service to fail beyond a certain point, as that amount of load would indicate an attack, not genuine usage.

hanselot 4y ago
I was also about to ask. How much? What would this example cost if someone decided to test it themselves?
- lizztheblizz 4y ago
  So, disclaimer, I am not an Amazon Billing wizard, but given that we ran the Lambdas from an isolated sub account, I can be particularly certain that I was able to filter this down accurately. We hit the one million connections total probably between 10-20 times over the course of a couple of days, and probably spent at least another 20-30 runs working our way up to it, testing various things along the way. Keep in mind, these were all very short-lived test runs, lasting maybe up to 8 minutes at the most. Our total bill for Lambda in the month of October came out to just over 50USD.
lizztheblizz 4y ago
Absolutely agreed. As others have already pointed out, there is no underlying implication of preference to this kind of application architecture. Since we do run an actual DBaaS, one of our main internal goals in running these experiments was to specifically test our Global Routing Infrastructure, and construct a scenario that allowed us to help size specifically those components for capacity planning. As long-time DBA's ourselves, we do as much as we can to educate and empower users to architect their applications wisely... but we still need to be prepared for the worst. As it turns out, Lambda was an easy way to accomplish that. :)

4 ms·

Impressive! But I guess the trade-off of having all that power is the potentially terrifying cost. As you detail in the post, AWS Lambda comes with a default th

by gsanderson 4y ago

hanselot 4y ago
I was also about to ask. How much? What would this example cost if someone decided to test it themselves?
- lizztheblizz 4y ago
  So, disclaimer, I am not an Amazon Billing wizard, but given that we ran the Lambdas from an isolated sub account, I can be particularly certain that I was able to filter this down accurately. We hit the one million connections total probably between 10-20 times over the course of a couple of days, and probably spent at least another 20-30 runs working our way up to it, testing various things along the way. Keep in mind, these were all very short-lived test runs, lasting maybe up to 8 minutes at the most. Our total bill for Lambda in the month of October came out to just over 50USD.
lizztheblizz 4y ago
Absolutely agreed. As others have already pointed out, there is no underlying implication of preference to this kind of application architecture. Since we do run an actual DBaaS, one of our main internal goals in running these experiments was to specifically test our Global Routing Infrastructure, and construct a scenario that allowed us to help size specifically those components for capacity planning. As long-time DBA's ourselves, we do as much as we can to educate and empower users to architect their applications wisely... but we still need to be prepared for the worst. As it turns out, Lambda was an easy way to accomplish that. :)