Live data from Hacker News

Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

news.ycombinator.com

1–10 of 22 posts

Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#1
I just can't help observe that my developer friends increasingly build on the "low-end", serverful platforms instead of serverless. Many call serverless overkill for the (commercial) apps they want to build. Will this be an ongoing trend?

In recent years, many new serverless service providers have been released for everything (Neon – Postgres, Cloudflare D1 – SQLite-like DB, GCP Functions, Vercel edge functions, etc.). However, people have been complaining about their complexity and overkill in the beginning.

More recently, I've witnessed friends prefer serverful providers for their apps because they offer more control, and are cheaper and simpler to get started with (their words). Serverful platforms like Render, Railway, or Fly.io have also become a bit more popular.

Both approaches come with their trade offs and limitations, especially at different scale and costs.

So, which way, western man: is Serverful the Future? Quo vadis, web development?

Re: Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#3
Has "serverful" ever left the party? When was it less popular? On youtube or twitter? Has serverless spending actually overtaken the world?

Nothing has shifted. It might have gained some market share but that's about it.

Re: Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#4
I've built some very small and simple systems in AWS Lambda such as email newsletter scripts. With a system like that I can get close to 100% reliability, never worry about the server crashing or overloading. My RSS reader answers webhooks with Lambda -- some of these systems have been cruising for years without maintenance.

Re: Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#5
Serverless enforces good architectural practices and is just fine for at least 80% of systems. By "just fine" I mean it leaves room for growth, puts you on a good architecture, and will have reasonable cost.

There are times though when serverless may not be a good idea:

- Atypical technology stack. If the stack you need, and actually need, isn't accounted for then you're on your own.

- Continuous, 24x7 application load. You'll have to do the cost analysis, but you may find you're better off provisioning a server.

- You want to "lift and shift" existing assets into the cloud.

Brand-new, greenfield project? Consider serverless first.

Re: Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#8
When using serverless, you are paying more for the devops and other simplifications. Eventually the costs can outway the benefits, have seen this many times. Serverless has its place, but it is not going to usurp cloud computing norms.

I'd also say things like Neon "serverless postgres" is not really serverless. It is using serverless as the de jour marketing term for managed postgres SaaS. I can get the same thing from GCP (Cloud SQL) for much less

Re: Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#9
post #3

Has "serverful" ever left the party? When was it less popular? On youtube or twitter? Has serverless spending actually overtaken the world? Nothing has shifted. It might have gained some market share but that's about it.

Serverles was briefly “the future” 2016-2020ish but id say most of its enthusiasm has gone towards Kubernetes, at least in the ponds I swim in

Re: Ask HN: Is Serverless Overkill?

#10
post #8

When using serverless, you are paying more for the devops and other simplifications. Eventually the costs can outway the benefits, have seen this many times. Serverless has its place, but it is not going to usurp cloud computing norms. I'd also say things like Neon "serverless postgres" is not really serverless. It is using serverless as the de jour marketing term for managed postgres SaaS. I can get the same thing f…

(Neon CEO)

What makes it not serverless in your opinion? This is our architecuture: https://neon.tech/docs/introduction/architecture-overview and no, you can not get the same from CloudSQL.

Post reply on HN