2 ms·

After using AWS Lambda and Kubernetes for different situations, I would go for Lambda everytime unless I had a compelling reason to use containers because 99% o

After using AWS Lambda and Kubernetes for different situations, I would go for Lambda everytime unless I had a compelling reason to use containers because 99% of what people have asked for is a CRUD application. Scales down to 0, so effectively no cost overnight when used infrequently, and if you use a scripting language like Python or JavaScript the startup times are in the ms for a new instance when scaling up. When I would use K8s would be if there is heavy processing involved, so want a language like Java or C to do the heavy lifting, image processing, encoding or encrypting and would be long running. Disagree with serverless only being for low traffic, I've used it for a a fair amount of high traffic situations and it is great for scaling up quickly.

thundergolfer 4y ago
> unless I had a compelling reason to use containers AWS Lambda and Google Cloud Functions support containers. > and would be long running. Unless it's running 24/7, you're better of with serverless batch processing systems or you'll need scale-to-zero on your Kubernetes cluster.
- coredog64 4y ago
  Yes, but… While Lambda supports containers, you lose out one one of the largest benefits of having Amazon patch/update the runtime. Which brings me to my opinion on the value proposition. There’s a concrete cost curve where ECS/EC2 is cheaper than Lambda in what you pay AWS, there’s a much higher inflection point where you are responsible for maintenance/operations. Under that line there’s still a place for serverless.
- happymellon 4y ago
  I completely agree with you, and I didn't think that anything I said contradicted you. Lamba works really well for reactive processing, such as supporting an API. You lose that benefit if you deal with something like Java because of the slow startup times gimps the processes. Hence, running it in an environment which will be on constantly with consistent throughput that is just a pipeline 24/7. The scenario I've used it with was GIS and satellite image processing, which would have blown through the Lambda limits and with constant images being published meant that it was essentially processing 24/7.
  - Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
    Do you happen to have a list of languages with lower startup times? I was trying to figure out what would work well for serverless development

thundergolfer 4y ago

> unless I had a compelling reason to use containers AWS Lambda and Google Cloud Functions support containers. > and would be long running. Unless it's running 24/7, you're better of with serverless batch processing systems or you'll need scale-to-zero on your Kubernetes cluster.

coredog64 4y ago
Yes, but… While Lambda supports containers, you lose out one one of the largest benefits of having Amazon patch/update the runtime. Which brings me to my opinion on the value proposition. There’s a concrete cost curve where ECS/EC2 is cheaper than Lambda in what you pay AWS, there’s a much higher inflection point where you are responsible for maintenance/operations. Under that line there’s still a place for serverless.
happymellon 4y ago
I completely agree with you, and I didn't think that anything I said contradicted you. Lamba works really well for reactive processing, such as supporting an API. You lose that benefit if you deal with something like Java because of the slow startup times gimps the processes. Hence, running it in an environment which will be on constantly with consistent throughput that is just a pipeline 24/7. The scenario I've used it with was GIS and satellite image processing, which would have blown through the Lambda limits and with constant images being published meant that it was essentially processing 24/7.
- Fire-Dragon-DoL 4y ago
  Do you happen to have a list of languages with lower startup times? I was trying to figure out what would work well for serverless development