41–50 of 101 posts
Honest question, why not just use dynamodb? If I'm already mostly server less and AWS, dynamodb seems like a natural choice for a persistent store in a world where cost and zero-scaling is important.
I guess a good opportunity for someone to build a good alternative. Although it's hard to get it right because if you scale to 0 people will complain about latency and if you don't it's not really serverless.
I think the problem is that we're trying to take paradigms that are designed to be serverful (is that a word?) and shoe-horn them into working in a serverless way.
It's possible and here is the recipe: https://twitter.com/nikitabase/status/1725394843285766463
Honest question, why not just use dynamodb? If I'm already mostly server less and AWS, dynamodb seems like a natural choice for a persistent store in a world where cost and zero-scaling is important.
Serverless V2 is also shit. The minimal one equivalent ACU to a regular instance has lots of latency spikes and much slower than a t3 instance. We also tried serverless Redis. We have a tiny machine at %10 CPU utilization, but sustained queries. It costs 20x more. We were very afraid of the result we just ran it for an hour to get an idea. Serverless, pay per use sounds only good if you have very few or unusual traff…
And most of those cases can be handled by a $5 a month instance. Thus, usually, the most serverless can save you is $5 a month.
I suppose the real appeal of serveless is you don't have to worry about maintaining the server, doing updates, etc.
Reminder that AWS Aurora claims to have broken the CAP theorem. The literature doesn’t clarify whether they are consistent or available, and when you ask AWS directly, they tell you the CAP theorem isn’t relevant due to the way Aurora is built. They claim 99.99% availability or whatever the figure is, that it’s self healing, allows up to 2 replicas to be down for write availability and 3 replicas to be down for read…
They do actually provide quite a lot of detail about Aurora storage this works. This 2019 reinvent talk gets pretty deep into the weeds.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uaQEGLKtw54
https://d1.awsstatic.com/events/reinvent/2019/REPEAT_Amazon_...
I guess a good opportunity for someone to build a good alternative. Although it's hard to get it right because if you scale to 0 people will complain about latency and if you don't it's not really serverless.
I mean if you scale to 0, you should expect cold start latency.
Honest question, why not just use dynamodb? If I'm already mostly server less and AWS, dynamodb seems like a natural choice for a persistent store in a world where cost and zero-scaling is important.
Because you need SQL. Dynamo can be quite powerful for querying if you use all of its features but it won't be as flexible as just using SQL
I think the big takeaway is that scale-to-zero customers aren't where they're making their money.