Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

open-lambda.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 70 posts

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#41

Post by spriggan3 »

inopinatus wrote: post #39
badminton1 wrote: post #25

I think serverless is a very misleading name, because it does still need server infrastructure and server software. The serverless term will confuse non-technical people to think there's actually no server infrastructure or software needed.

On the contrary, neither of things are required. Most tellingly, Lambda itself was first released as an event-driven service; there was no endpoint to invoke in a client-server fashion. Moreover, although function-as-a-service requires hardware to run on (duh), the need for server-grade compute infrastructure is obviated by the short execution times. You could run a FaaS-based offering on a massive array of smartphon…

> there was no endpoint to invoke in a client-server fashion.

How do you trigger a function from the outside Lambda ?

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#42

Post by lqdc13 »

lostcolony wrote: post #34
faleidel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with serverless is that it's seems to mean distributed. So why not chose a more fitting name?

Like? The point of it is there are no servers to manage. That's the sell, that's the differentiator. Hence the name. But by all means, if you have a better term for it I'd love to hear it.

Well thing is you ARE indirectly managing server resources. For example, you have to deal with "autoscaling" or else it can run out of control.

Why not say "fully-managed" or "serverside fully-managed"?

In serverless, everyone is a "client" and you run things client-side. Things like P2P file sharing in the browser is serverless. Things like AWS lambda obviously have a server.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#43

Post by inopinatus »

mrmondo wrote: post #27

So there's no servers, anywhere in this? You don't run it on a computer or anything? Clearly I'm being a smart ass, but pointing out that 'serverless' is an idiotic marketing term.

Indeed there may not be. You do not require server-grade hardware to build a function-as-a-service platform. Moreover you do not need a client-server endpoint. If you do have either of those things, it's an implementation detail. Case in point, AWS Lambda was launched without one of them.

If you have a better suggestion for a catchy name for function-as-a-service, the world of tech marketing awaits you.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#44

Post by spriggan3 »

lostcolony wrote: post #34
faleidel wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The problem with serverless is that it's seems to mean distributed. So why not chose a more fitting name?

Like? The point of it is there are no servers to manage. That's the sell, that's the differentiator. Hence the name. But by all means, if you have a better term for it I'd love to hear it.

> The point of it is there are no servers to manage

If I deploy a PHP script on a shared host there is no server to manage either. My PHP script doesn't listen communications on a socket connection. It doesn't make it "serverless". At some point the stuff you deploy, on a server no matter what you think it is, needs to communicate with the outside world through a server. It is not "serverless".

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#45

Post by sbarski »

spriggan3 wrote: post #40
sbarski wrote: post #38

Interesting. Will keep an eye on this. And for all those who disagree with "Serverless", come to Serverlessconf London (london.serverlessconf.io) and we can debate it there. In fact, would love to see everyone there!

> And for all those who disagree with "Serverless", come to Serverlessconf London (london.serverlessconf.io) and we can debate it there. In fact, would love to see everyone there! Nobody disagree with anything but the marketing. "Serveless" is just an inaccurate description of what is actually going on. There is a server otherwise how do you communicate with the outside world? You need an API gateway to your pubsub a…

I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case). The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless.

I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there.

I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and misleading than something like "cloud" which is completely abstract.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#46

Post by inopinatus »

spriggan3 wrote: post #41
inopinatus wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the contrary, neither of things are required. Most tellingly, Lambda itself was first released as an event-driven service; there was no endpoint to invoke in a client-server fashion. Moreover, although function-as-a-service requires hardware to run on (duh), the need for server-grade compute infrastructure is obviated by the short execution times. You could run a FaaS-based offering on a massive array of smartphon…

> there was no endpoint to invoke in a client-server fashion. How do you trigger a function from the outside Lambda ?

The wrapper to fit Lambda into a client-server synchronous-invocation world is API Gateway.

But Lambda was built as an event consumer e.g. listening to a SNS queue. If you look at the broader set of AWS services you have a full toolbox of event-driven pub/sub message/event-driven tools to play with: Lambda / Kinesis / S3 / DynamoDB / SNS / SQS / Cognito / IoT and more.

It's enough of an integration & compute lego kit to build complete distributed/asynchronous pub/sub applications. However the tools are kinda .. developmental, you'll be doing much of the wiring up yourself.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#47

Post by spriggan3 »

sbarski wrote: post #45
spriggan3 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And for all those who disagree with "Serverless", come to Serverlessconf London (london.serverlessconf.io) and we can debate it there. In fact, would love to see everyone there! Nobody disagree with anything but the marketing. "Serveless" is just an inaccurate description of what is actually going on. There is a server otherwise how do you communicate with the outside world? You need an API gateway to your pubsub a…

I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case). The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless. I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there. I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and…

> I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there.

It's a bad analogy. As a developer you are supposed to know they are wires somewhere. That's why all this marketing is dangerous. the obfuscation which makes everything sound like "voodoo and black magic".

> The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless.

Yes he does, he has to configure and manage the whole thing on Amazon dashboard. Sure he doesn't have to spin upcontainers, but autoscaling doesn't make something "serverless". And again, you need API gateway to communicate with the outside world. So there is still a server fronting the whole thing.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#48

Post by protomikron »

sbarski wrote: post #45
spriggan3 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And for all those who disagree with "Serverless", come to Serverlessconf London (london.serverlessconf.io) and we can debate it there. In fact, would love to see everyone there! Nobody disagree with anything but the marketing. "Serveless" is just an inaccurate description of what is actually going on. There is a server otherwise how do you communicate with the outside world? You need an API gateway to your pubsub a…

I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case). The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless. I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there. I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and…

You sound like Obi Wan Kenobi. I mean, most people would agree with Luke, that he lied to him, when he said his father was dead.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#49

Post by spriggan3 »

inopinatus wrote: post #46
spriggan3 wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there was no endpoint to invoke in a client-server fashion. How do you trigger a function from the outside Lambda ?

The wrapper to fit Lambda into a client-server synchronous-invocation world is API Gateway. But Lambda was built as an event consumer e.g. listening to a SNS queue. If you look at the broader set of AWS services you have a full toolbox of event-driven pub/sub message/event-driven tools to play with: Lambda / Kinesis / S3 / DynamoDB / SNS / SQS / Cognito / IoT and more. It's enough of an integration & compute lego kit…

> The wrapper to fit Lambda into a client-server synchronous-invocation world is API Gateway.

So yes, there is a server indeed. Why call it "serverless" then ? because one part of the stack uses pubsub ? then call that part a worker queue because that's what it is.

Re: OpenLambda, a system for serverless computing

#50

Post by sbarski »

spriggan3 wrote: post #47
sbarski wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am sure people have said this but it's "serverless" from the perspective of the user (who is a developer in this case). The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for them the system is serverless. I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there. I honestly think that serverless is a lot less ambiguous and…

> I guess it's like wireless... Something could be wireless from the perspective of the end user but there are still wires actually there. It's a bad analogy. As a developer you are supposed to know they are wires somewhere. That's why all this marketing is dangerous. the obfuscation which makes everything sound like "voodoo and black magic". > The developer doesn't have to deal with servers/infrastructure so for the…

I think we might be thinking about Serverless slightly differently. To me serverless is not just AWS Lambda. It's a broader theme that encompasses Function-as-a-Service technologies like Lambda and Backend-as-a-Service technologies like Firebase & Auth0.

Combining FaaS, BaaS, and using certain techniques and patterns is what makes Serverless. As a developer I am plenty aware that there are servers - I don't feel that there is any voodoo or black magic. However, when someone says that they have a serverless system I immediately understand what they are trying to say. They are saying that they don't need to manage, provision, scale, and look after servers. Honestly, the world "serverless" is a lot less confusing than "cloud".

I am not sure what you mean by "there is still a server fronting the whole thing". You don't need to scale the API Gateway yourself (again it's a managed service). Same goes for Azure functions, Google Cloud Functions and OpenWhisk as they all have HTTP listeners built in.

I understand where your thinking is coming from. There was this article that tried to address it: https://serverless.zone/serverless-is-just-a-name-we-could-h...

Edit: fixed sentence structure.

Post reply on HN