4 ms·
> 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
by 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 agoThe 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 ago5% of the expected workload for a Prime Video service is probably more than 99% of the workloads of the readers.
- qaq 3y agoWell 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.