4 ms·

It basically doesn't have the main thing that makes Cloud Run so valuable. Speaking more generally, it seems AWS is allergic to creating products that scale to

by pid-1 3y ago

It basically doesn't have the main thing that makes Cloud Run so valuable. Speaking more generally, it seems AWS is allergic to creating products that scale to zero nowadays.

slrainka 3y ago
App Runner is an abstraction on top of FarGate designed to compete with Cloud Run, which is why it doesn’t scale down to zero. I too haven’t found anything that beats the simplicity of a GCP deployment sigh..
- badrequest 3y ago
  If it doesn't scale down to zero, then it doesn't compete with Cloud Run.
  - fomine3 3y ago
    It depends on use case. Some corps don't care about down to zero.
    - aenis 3y ago
      In fact, I was waiting for years for them to add a min instances option. But otherwise, agree, been running large and small production workloads since it launched and its been great.
ramraj07 3y ago
Scaling down to zero appeals to amateur side project folks - no enterprise customer probably cares about that marginal expense here..
- starfallg 3y ago
  It really depends on which workloads. We have teams working only on FinOps to optimize our architecture to take advantage of various cloud pricing models. Enterprise spend on cloud is a massive topic right now and definitely in the spotlight. A consensus is developing that the current implementation of public cloud promotes lock-in and overall much more expensive at scale. Cloud is complex and engineers are expensive. Instead of throwing CPU cycles and disk at the problem (which is cheap compared to engineer time), we are nickel-and-dimeing everything, and changing our architectures to hack the cloud pricing models. It's pretty silly.
- pid-1 3y ago
  According to my anedoctal experience, that's grossly wrong across many industries.
leptons 3y ago
I've paid $0.00 for my many AWS Lambda functions, and will always pay $0 so long as I keep it under 1 million executions per month (and AWS keeps this free tier going). I also use SimpleDB, SES, and other services that also cost $0.00/mo. The only thing I pay for is S3, which totals about $0.30 per month, for a few gigs of data. And I'm very happy with AWS, It's been costing me less than $6 per year to build out and run a complex web app, albeit with no users. But still, AWS absolutely does scale down to zero very nicely.
- pid-1 3y ago
  Sure. Just note all products you mentioned are rather old. When AWS announces anything serverless nowadays, things do not scale to zero.

by pid-1 3y ago

It basically doesn't have the main thing that makes Cloud Run so valuable. Speaking more generally, it seems AWS is allergic to creating products that scale to zero nowadays.

slrainka 3y ago

App Runner is an abstraction on top of FarGate designed to compete with Cloud Run, which is why it doesn’t scale down to zero. I too haven’t found anything that beats the simplicity of a GCP deployment sigh..

badrequest 3y ago
If it doesn't scale down to zero, then it doesn't compete with Cloud Run.
- fomine3 3y ago
  It depends on use case. Some corps don't care about down to zero.
  - aenis 3y ago
    In fact, I was waiting for years for them to add a min instances option. But otherwise, agree, been running large and small production workloads since it launched and its been great.

ramraj07 3y ago

Scaling down to zero appeals to amateur side project folks - no enterprise customer probably cares about that marginal expense here..

starfallg 3y ago
It really depends on which workloads. We have teams working only on FinOps to optimize our architecture to take advantage of various cloud pricing models. Enterprise spend on cloud is a massive topic right now and definitely in the spotlight. A consensus is developing that the current implementation of public cloud promotes lock-in and overall much more expensive at scale. Cloud is complex and engineers are expensive. Instead of throwing CPU cycles and disk at the problem (which is cheap compared to engineer time), we are nickel-and-dimeing everything, and changing our architectures to hack the cloud pricing models. It's pretty silly.
pid-1 3y ago
According to my anedoctal experience, that's grossly wrong across many industries.

leptons 3y ago

I've paid $0.00 for my many AWS Lambda functions, and will always pay $0 so long as I keep it under 1 million executions per month (and AWS keeps this free tier going). I also use SimpleDB, SES, and other services that also cost $0.00/mo. The only thing I pay for is S3, which totals about $0.30 per month, for a few gigs of data. And I'm very happy with AWS, It's been costing me less than $6 per year to build out and run a complex web app, albeit with no users. But still, AWS absolutely does scale down to zero very nicely.

pid-1 3y ago
Sure. Just note all products you mentioned are rather old. When AWS announces anything serverless nowadays, things do not scale to zero.