3 ms·
I guess the part I don't get is, if your traffic is that low, doesn't that mean you could run the service on a ~$4/month instance anyway? Even if we assume the
by wavemode 2y ago
I guess the part I don't get is, if your traffic is that low, doesn't that mean you could run the service on a ~$4/month instance anyway? Even if we assume the lambda option is cheaper, it's only cheaper by pennies, basically. In exchange for taking on a bunch of added complexity.
- bubblyworld 2y agoNot the OP, but things can be infrequent and bursty, or infrequent and expensive, or infrequent and memory-intensive. In those cases (and many more I'm sure) lambda can make sense.
- sudhirj 2y agoSort of, but two things add up - lots of little services (I don't like the microservices word), but we do make small services for the workloads that make sense to run and maintain independently. The other is burst, we run a business where customers send us a couple hundred thousand things to do just once a week or once a day. And of course we don't know exactly when the orders will come in. Much easier to let the lambdas run than have large running servers waiting. Autoscaling is possible, of course, but laggy autoscaling won't work, and aggressive autoscaling is basically lambda.