Just don't get attached to company and don't work late.
Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
21–30 of 150 posts
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#22- Easily scalable/autoscaling
- Drastically reduced operations/maintenance/devops overhead
- CI/CD can be much simpler
- Observability is built in (metrics, logging, alerting is built in)
- Built in connections to other cloud products
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#23Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#24> The consensus on the internet seems to be "serverless has its use cases" but it's not clear to me what those use cases are. My $0.02, having used serverless before. Those use cases are: * Very very low traffic apps. POST hooks for Slack bots, etc.. Works well! * Someone who is an "architect" can now put "experience with Serverless" on their CV and get hired somewhere else that is looking for that keyword in their C…
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#25We've used AWS Lambda for about 4 years, and it's been so good and so cheap that I'm shifting literally everything (except Redis) to serverless. Also, GCP has a better serverless offering (Cloud Run, Spanner), so we're switching from AWS to GCP to take advantage of that. I bet we're going to see a massive cost reduction, but we'll see.
Things I like about serverless (again, from the perspective of a very small startup, with 5 engineers, and me being the primary architect):
* It's so liberating to not worry about EC2 servers and autoscale and container orchestration myself. All our Cloud Formation templates add up to around 3,000 lines, which maybe doesn't sound like a lot, but it's a lot. There are tons of little configuration things to worry about, and it adds up. (Not to mention the sheer amount of time it took to learn.) ECS Fargate takes care of some of this, but it doesn't autoscale based on demand or anything (not without settings things up yourself). (This is a big reason why I want to switch to GCP: Cloud Run is like Fargate in that it runs containers, but unlike Fargate it autoscales from 0 based on load.)
* It's very cheap in practice, at least for loads like ours that respond to events: API services that sometimes see a lot of use and sometimes see very little use; queue consumers sometimes have a lot to do and sometimes have very little to do. AWS Lambda bills down to the milisecond in terms of resolution, and GCP Cloud Run/Cloud Funcitons bills down to the next 100 miliseconds. These are very fine resolutions and for us at least, we've seen costs be small.
* For database serverless products (like DynamoDB for example), it's very liberating to never have to think "Hm, do we have enough CPU provisioned?"
Things I don't like about serverless
* Pushing source code sucks. Lambda will just one day decide your version of Python or whatever isn't good enough and force your customers to upgrade all their user-written code to the latest Python version. (But! Cloud Run supports containers, and so this won't be a problem.)
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#26> The consensus on the internet seems to be "serverless has its use cases" but it's not clear to me what those use cases are. My $0.02, having used serverless before. Those use cases are: * Very very low traffic apps. POST hooks for Slack bots, etc.. Works well! * Someone who is an "architect" can now put "experience with Serverless" on their CV and get hired somewhere else that is looking for that keyword in their C…
This is absolutely a huge step backwards in terms of architecture. And methinks this architect doesn't have the broadest understanding of Azure and is reaching for the easiest tool in the toolbox.
Edit: "serverless" is a broad term. There's a difference between shoehorning every microservice into a lambda-like service (bad), and migrating from a collection of VMs to a managed Azure service that does the exact same thing (can be good).
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#27> The consensus on the internet seems to be "serverless has its use cases" but it's not clear to me what those use cases are. My $0.02, having used serverless before. Those use cases are: * Very very low traffic apps. POST hooks for Slack bots, etc.. Works well! * Someone who is an "architect" can now put "experience with Serverless" on their CV and get hired somewhere else that is looking for that keyword in their C…
* Good for "minimally dynamic" apps
* Easier in compliance/regulation-heavy environments (the kind that impose burdens on OS configuration and maintenance)
* Like you said, great for low traffic apps (the kind of things we usually build, toss over the fence to another department, and then never look at again)
* Also like you said, resume driven development
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#28* Scalability is real. We have some bursty traffic, sometimes with extreme burst, and we've had no problems scaling to meet that need.
* Our traffic is still predominately during business hours in the U.S. That's an extremely important point - because our site is effectively being used for only 12 hours or so per day. The remainder of the day and on weekends it's unused. We looked at the cost of using EC2 instances and Elastic Beanstalk and the full serverless is still cheaper.
What we've discovered in our cost analysis is if you have a site that's hit 24x7, 7 days per week then you'd be better off hosting on EC2. If your traffic is constant and there's not much variability over time then it may make more sense to host on-prem. In our case we have highly variable traffic during standard business hours. Serverless is the way to go for that scenario.
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#29Serverless functions are great if you have a lot of small services that need to be "on standby at all times".
For example if you have 5000 separate services, it doesn't makes sense to have them all running all the time if 4,000 of them have very low traffic. So one of the main benefits is that you get the ability to "increase your library of services at a very low cost". Serverless also really shines with quick stateless actions.
However, converting an app to all serverless is a huge task and for most apps it doesn't make sense.
Two major drawbacks:
1) You're bound to only the language versions that are currently supported.
2) You're writing code specifically for the platform so without a heavy lift you're "locked in"
If the goal is to go serverless and get rid of the server management, I'd suggest looking into containerizing your existing apps and deploying on a "serverless" managed service like Fargate (or your favorite cloud provider's equivalent). This approach is also lets you go to a different cloud provider if you want... or even move back to your own datacenter with no code changes.
Re: Ask HN: Skeptical about my company going “full serverless”. What am I missing?
#30Make sure the serverless model include all gimmick you currently have such as firewall, waf, cache, ssl termination, load balancer, current traffic levels etc.etc.