3 ms·
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 in
by 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 agoExactly. 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