A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES • Hacker News Board

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#111

Post by rumanator » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:02 PM UTC

cddotdotslash wrote: post #97

scarface74 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still fail to understand why 4 years in, people seem to be confused about the idea that definitions of words involve over the years and that the computer industry has both been coining and adopting phrases. But a quick Google search is all that it would take to “understand it” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serverless_computing

Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" without the exact same replies being posted every time. It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that a new term exists and is in use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses.

> Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" wits nhout the exact same replies being posted every time.

As a serverless skeptic/critic, the buzzword bingo aspect of serverless computing is far from being the problem, and it's a gross missrepresentation of the problems posed by serverless computing.

The main problem with server applications such as AWS lambda, along with lack of control, is how utterly expensive it becomes by enforcing a SaaS business model to simple function calls, and how convoluted and needlessly complex it becomes by having to resort to yet another premium service to simply manage workflows (see AWS step functions).

Suggesting that any criticism of the serverless fad is just old grumpy incompetent developers that are too dumb to understand the future and are to scared of being out of a job is a disingenuous attack on anyone who has the audacity of not falling behind a fad.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#112

Post by rumanator » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:05 PM UTC

arno1 wrote: post #36

rahuldottech wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, it's a really dumb term. > Serverless computing is a cloud-computing execution model in which the cloud provider runs the server ...so, there is a server? What's with the name, then?

Probably this means that there is no server you can SSH to nor need to maintain. It could probably be called a serverhostage/server-lock-in computing, where someone else keeps the _shared_ server(s) away from you and runs other people's, potentially harmful, instructions as well :-)

> Probably this means that

Ok, so "serverless" is just a buzzword that doesn't really have a good meaning. That's doesn't really matter. To me it's just easier and actually meaningful and objective to refer to services like AWS lambda as "Function as a Service".

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Function_as_a_service

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#113

Post by wodny » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:06 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #96

wodny wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There is a huge difference between a metaphor (resemblance) and contradiction (stating it is and isn't something at the same time).

What’s the “resemblance” of “running in the cloud” to “running on servers owned by someone else”?

It isn't a great name, but: it doesn't bare a contradiction in itself (contrary to "serverless"), there was already a tradition of drawing unspecified networks or internet as a cloud in diagrams. So "running in the cloud" as running "somewhere in the network we used to draw as a cloud" has an explanation. Also note, I didn't state that there are only two types of names. I commented on what "bug" and "serverless" is.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#114

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:11 PM UTC

rumanator wrote: post #111

cddotdotslash wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" without the exact same replies being posted every time. It's as if a certain portion of the HN crowd simply cannot fathom that a new term exists and is in use, and instead resort to the same, tired responses.

> Not a single post on Hacker News can use the term "serverless" wits nhout the exact same replies being posted every time. As a serverless skeptic/critic, the buzzword bingo aspect of serverless computing is far from being the problem, and it's a gross missrepresentation of the problems posed by serverless computing. The main problem with server applications such as AWS lambda, along with lack of control, is how utt…

As if the time to manage servers is free. But lambda is far from expensive. If you’re spending even $100 a month on lambda, you probably have a successful business.

And everything is “complex” if you don’t know how to do it optimally.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#115

Post by wodny » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #107

chrischattin wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The term serverless is not a metaphor like your examples, it's a contradiction. Big difference. I feel like understanding the "computer concepts" makes the term seem even more absurd.

It’s an abstraction - just like every other computer concept.

An abstraction where "positive" and "negative" mean the same just for safety so they can't be confused with each other.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#116

Post by rumanator » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

corobo wrote: post #38

scarface74 wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I still fail to understand why 4 years in, people seem to be confused about the idea that definitions of words involve over the years and that the computer industry has both been coining and adopting phrases. But a quick Google search is all that it would take to “understand it” https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Serverless_computing

I've found that "I don't even get what the word is supposed to mean" is someone's first experience with tech fear. In my experience (including my own personal anecdata) they tend to mean "I don't want to learn this new thing and because of that I'm worried I'll be left behind if everyone switches to this"

> I've found that "I don't even get what the word is supposed to mean" is someone's first experience with tech fear.

This is a gross misrepresentation of the actual problem affecting the "serverless" fad, which is the buzzword overload accompanied by a lack of objective definitions. Function-as-a-service (FaaS) is an objective, clear-cut concept, but "serverless computing" is supposed to be a more general term where FaaS is only a realization of the concept. Yet, by keeping the concept as a buzzword then the proponents actually avoid having to argue the merits and the advantages of this sort of architecture, thus contributing to the growing skepticism.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#117

Post by rumanator » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

scarface74 wrote: post #59

pantalaimon wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty much the definition of managed hosting.

When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc.

> When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc.

Your comment did nothing to address the point, which is that your definiiton of "serverless" is actually just a buzzword used to refer to the old as the web commercial practice of managed hosting.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#118

Post by rumanator » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

cs02rm0 wrote: post #60

AznHisoka wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So how is it different than running it in the cloud?

It is in the cloud. It's different in that you don't have access to the cloud server, just a service on it. To me it's like having one hand tied behind your back while someone else uses their hand to do what you'd have done with the one tied behind your back. It's cheaper, sometimes it works the way you want it to, but you always feel a bit restricted.

> It's cheaper, sometimes it works the way you want it to, but you always feel a bit restricted.

The "cheapness" argument is open to debate. So far the main argument I've seen for Function-as-a-Service offerings is that it's cheaper than just paying for a VM instance to run a dedicated service. To start off, a dedicated VM can cost about 5€ a month, which represents the absolute total saving that is supposed to be driving this discussion. Even if we ignore this fact, if you already have VM instances running somewhere then you certainly have enough computing capacity to spare to run these compute tasks without having to incur in extra charges per function call.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#119

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:24 PM UTC

wodny wrote: post #115

scarface74 wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an abstraction - just like every other computer concept.

An abstraction where "positive" and "negative" mean the same just for safety so they can't be confused with each other.

You’ve never worked with C code that had to run on both big endian and little endian systems that had to share a common byte protocol. Where two bytes in the same order can mean something completely different.

There are a lot of things “confusing” about computer science when you don’t take the time to learn it.

Re: A serverless email server on AWS using S3 and SES

#120

Post by scarface74 » Sat, Jan 04, 2020, 3:30 PM UTC

rumanator wrote: post #117

scarface74 wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc.

> When you are just using a VM - it’s your responsibility to keep the VMs and the runtimes patched, design a scaling solution, etc. Your comment did nothing to address the point, which is that your definiiton of "serverless" is actually just a buzzword used to refer to the old as the web commercial practice of managed hosting.

So was “running in the cloud” just a buzzword?

Serverless is not just “managed hosting” in the cgi-bin since - serverless implies there is no server to manage and it’s for all intents and purposes “infinitely scalable”.

For instance, Amazon’s hosted versions of Mysql, Postgres, Sql Server, etc are not what they consider “Serverless” you still have to size it appropriately and if your needs increase, have to move to a larger server. You have to worry about CPU utilization, memory utilization etc.

DynamoDB is considered “serverless” because you don’t have to manage any of that.

The same is the difference between S3 and provisioning storage that you attach to your VM.