Why Fathom is running serverless at scale instead of containers

Подписаться 6 тыс.

50% 1

Fathom is running tens of thousands of Lambda concurrent executions at peak. At that scale, it would be cheaper to run them on containers, but the team would need to hire additional skillsets into the company at a great expense, which raises the total cost of ownership (TCO) of the solution.
And for Fathom, the total cost of ownership is everything.
✅ Recommended playlists:
Real-World Serverless podcast on RU-vid
• Is AWS Bedrock the Ope...
My BEST videos of 2023
• Is AWS Bedrock the Ope...
🔔 For more free videos on RU-vid, subscribe to my channel:
youtube.com/@theburningmonk?s...
💌 If you're hungry for more insights, best practices, and tips on building serverless applications, make sure to subscribe to my weekly newsletter and elevate your serverless game!
theburningmonk.com/subscribe
📚 My courses 📚
theburningmonk.com/courses
👨‍🏫 My hands-on serverless workshop 👨‍🏫
productionreadyserverless.com
🌐 Find me here
Twitter: / theburningmonk
LinkedIn: / theburningmonk
Blog: theburningmonk.com

Наука

Опубликовано:

9 мар 2024

Ссылка:

Скачать:

Готовим ссылку...

Добавить в:

Мой плейлист

Посмотреть позже

Комментарии : 8

@RDarrylR 4 месяца назад

It’s great hearing about real world use cases running at scale. Thanks!

@theburningmonk 4 месяца назад

Glad it was helpful!

@cyrilgorrieri 4 месяца назад

What about ECS with Fargate? This is fully serverless as well and completely managed by AWS

@theburningmonk 4 месяца назад

I like Ben Kehoe's definition of serverless being a spectrum: ben11kehoe.medium.com/the-serverless-spectrum-147b02cb2292 with that in mind, Fargate is more serverless than EC2, but not as serverless as Lambda because it doesn't scale to 0 and does not offer usage-based pricing, two of the litmus tests for "fully serverless" services: www.gomomento.com/blog/fighting-off-fake-serverless-bandits-with-the-true-definition-of-serverless That's not to say that Fargate might not be a bad option for Fathom, but it's definitely not as hands-off as Lambda, which is what the Fathom team is looking for from what I gathered.

@enriquecordero6163 4 месяца назад

Greetings Yan Cui, I would like to know your opinion on when to use a container instead of a lambda, apart from when the process lasts more than 15 minutes. By the way, eagerly awaiting the launch of productionreadyserverless

@theburningmonk 4 месяца назад

When you either 1) can't use Lambda because - e.g. you need to run for more than 15 mins, or 2) it doesn't make economic sense to use Lambda in TCO terms - e.g. when you have a high throughput API (say, averaging 1000+ RPS) and you have a team that knows how to run containers at scale. The TCO bit is important, because it depends on whether you need to hire additional skillset into your organization. If you do, then that makes massive difference, and that's why Jack said in the video that, it'd only make sense for them to containerize if the cost of Lambda reaches 2-3 full-time devops engineers, because that's probably the minimum you'd need to operate a containerized environment 24/7.

@enriquecordero6163 4 месяца назад

Same topic, focused on AppSync: Is an HTTP resolver to a payment API, for example, capable of handling 1000 transactions per second? I purchased your AppSync course and want to implement it where I work.

@theburningmonk 4 месяца назад

Always check the quotas page for the service you want to use. They might not be exhaustive but it's a good starting point. You can do it by googling " quotas" or go to the "Service Quotas" console in your AWS console. For AppSync specifically, you're looking for this page: docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/appsync.html In terms of throughput, you're concerned about the "Rate of request tokens", which roughly translates to 2,000 RPS but that's a soft limit and can be raised. There might be a hard limit somewhere, but it's likely much higher than the 2,000 RPS default limit.