3 ms·

Discussed here: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35811741 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35811741

• lucb1e 4y ago
  The most nuanced summarizing comment I found in that thread is now on page 2, three levels down: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35812954 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=35812954 > this [cost saving] is for a video quality monitoring system, that needs to consume and process video. Generally a compute and time intensive task. Something not always suited to severless, particularly when it’s not easy to parallelise. > The task at hand doesn’t sound ideally suited to serverless, but the existence of the post shows that’s not readily obvious. So it’s a valuable post to explain a scenario where a few big machines is the best call. > But the sensationalism of the headline, would suggest all serverless is expensive and wasteful. So this is not the streaming service itself, but a quality monitoring system of said service. I personally regard this whole new-style shared hosting thing with some skepticism, it sounds like traditional shared hosting but sold as a new hype that needs to cost more than a private server, but this comment gets me actually interested in reading the article and how it's not just obvious that it's cheaper not to use "AWS serverless".