4 ms·

I'd be surprised if this doesn't get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light (and rightly so). That's the impression I have of Amazon's leader

I'd be surprised if this doesn't get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light (and rightly so). That's the impression I have of Amazon's leadership but maybe I'm wrong.

dpwm 3y ago
> We designed our initial solution as a distributed system using serverless components (for example, AWS Step Functions or AWS Lambda), which was a good choice for building the service quickly. The message seems more that they outgrew AWS lambda but that lambda was a good choice at first.
- supriyo-biswas 3y ago
  The post literally says that they could hit only 5% of the expected workload with their server less architecture, so IMO it is still quite negative.
  - simplotek 3y ago
    > The post literally says that they could hit only 5% of the expected workload with their server less architecture, so IMO it is still quite negative. Emphasis on "their server less architecture". Sometimes good tools are used poorly. For example they describe a high throughout workload, and each workload spread through a bunch of lambdas that handled bite size bits of the workflow. Also, they managed the workflow with step functions. Just imagine the number of network calls involved to run a single job, let alone all the work pulling data to/from a data store like S3 into/out of a lambda. I'd guess the bulk of their wall time was IO to setup the computation. Of course you get far better performance if you get rid of all these interfaces.
  - deanCommie 3y ago
    5% of the expected workload for a Prime Video service is probably more than 99% of the workloads of the readers.
- qaq 3y ago
  Well they do work for Amazon they can't say lambda sux. Monolith is way faster to develop especially the CI/CD part so no if they started with monolith there would be no downside.
emodendroket 3y ago
The solution was using a different array of AWS resources so I don't see how anything is being cast in a bad light. Lambda is great for many use cases.
simplotek 3y ago
> I'd be surprised if this doesn't get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light (and rightly so). The article mostly lays the blame on step functions. Also, lambdas are portrayed as event handlers that don't run relatively often. This means long running tasks that are ran occasionally, or events that don't fire that often. Once throughout needs go up or your invocation frequency comes closer to the millisecond then the rule of thumb is that you are already requiring a dedicated service.
dragonwriter 3y ago
> I’d be surprised if this doesn’t get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light “There are use cases where Amazon EC2 and Amazon ECS are a better platform than AWS Lambda” is…not actually a message that anyone involved in AWS has ever been afraid to put forward. I mean, the whole reason that AWS has a whole raft of different compute solutions is that, notionally, removing any one would make the offering less fit for some use case.
deleted 3y ago
[deleted]

I'd be surprised if this doesn't get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light (and rightly so). That's the impression I have of Amazon's leadership but maybe I'm wrong.

dpwm 3y ago

> We designed our initial solution as a distributed system using serverless components (for example, AWS Step Functions or AWS Lambda), which was a good choice for building the service quickly. The message seems more that they outgrew AWS lambda but that lambda was a good choice at first.

supriyo-biswas 3y ago
The post literally says that they could hit only 5% of the expected workload with their server less architecture, so IMO it is still quite negative.
- simplotek 3y ago
  > The post literally says that they could hit only 5% of the expected workload with their server less architecture, so IMO it is still quite negative. Emphasis on "their server less architecture". Sometimes good tools are used poorly. For example they describe a high throughout workload, and each workload spread through a bunch of lambdas that handled bite size bits of the workflow. Also, they managed the workflow with step functions. Just imagine the number of network calls involved to run a single job, let alone all the work pulling data to/from a data store like S3 into/out of a lambda. I'd guess the bulk of their wall time was IO to setup the computation. Of course you get far better performance if you get rid of all these interfaces.
- deanCommie 3y ago
  5% of the expected workload for a Prime Video service is probably more than 99% of the workloads of the readers.
qaq 3y ago
Well they do work for Amazon they can't say lambda sux. Monolith is way faster to develop especially the CI/CD part so no if they started with monolith there would be no downside.

emodendroket 3y ago

The solution was using a different array of AWS resources so I don't see how anything is being cast in a bad light. Lambda is great for many use cases.

simplotek 3y ago

> I'd be surprised if this doesn't get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light (and rightly so). The article mostly lays the blame on step functions. Also, lambdas are portrayed as event handlers that don't run relatively often. This means long running tasks that are ran occasionally, or events that don't fire that often. Once throughout needs go up or your invocation frequency comes closer to the millisecond then the rule of thumb is that you are already requiring a dedicated service.

dragonwriter 3y ago

> I’d be surprised if this doesn’t get taken down as it casts AWS lambda in an unfavorable light “There are use cases where Amazon EC2 and Amazon ECS are a better platform than AWS Lambda” is…not actually a message that anyone involved in AWS has ever been afraid to put forward. I mean, the whole reason that AWS has a whole raft of different compute solutions is that, notionally, removing any one would make the offering less fit for some use case.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]