3 ms·

Excerpt AWS lambda is stupidly cheap!

• Esophagus4 1y ago
  For certain workloads :) And that is actually the advantage of serverless, in my mind. For some low-traffic workloads, you can host for next to nothing. Per invocation, it is expensive, but if you only have a few invocations of a workload that isn't very latency sensitive, you can run an entirely serverless architecture for pennies per month. Where people get burned is moving high traffic volumes to serverless... then they look at their bill and go, "Oh my god, what have I done!?" Or they try to throw all sorts of duct tape at serverless to make it highly performant, which is a fool's errand.
  • cogman10 1y ago
    Exactly. I've always found that how people want to use lambda is the exact opposite of how to use it cost effectively. I've seen a lot of people want to use lambdas as rest endpoints and effectively replace their entire API with a cluster of lambdas. But that's about the most expensive way to use a lambda! 1 request, one lambda. Where these things are useful is when you say "I have this daily data pull and ETL that I need to do." Then all the sudden the cost is pretty dang competitive.
    • hvb2 1y ago
      > Where these things are useful All the backend processing and just general 'glue' in your architectures
• codegeek 1y ago
  How long is a piece of string ? "Cheap" is relevant if you are talking about work load that is one off and doesn't run continuously. A lot of people use serverless to run a 24-7 service which sort of defeats the purpose. It doesn't get that cheap anymore. Serverless is good if you have one off tasks that are used intermittently and are not consistent.
• mystifyingpoi 1y ago
  The amount of 0s in the price per second is mesmerizing, but just multiply this by 24h and 30 days, and you are well within the price range of a better EC2 with much better performance, plus you can process 1000 req/s instead of 1 req/s for the same price.