As a software architect, I hate serverless. Not because it doesn't work, but because it forces design constraints that cripple your application. Here's why always-on servers matter.
  • BozeKnoflook@lemmy.worldEnglish
    23·
    25 days ago

    I’m sure ‘serverless’ has a good time and place to be used, but in my experience it has just always been the worse choice.

    “But we need to be able to scale!”

    Sure, but we’re not in a place where we’re getting anywhere near early mySpace / Facebook / Google style growth. Just get a regular ass cheap VPS and stick your service on it; if you need to expand upgrade the VPS. If it’s starts getting serious then let’s look at compartmentalizing and distributing it if we need to.

    • Fair Fairy@thelemmy.clubOPEnglish
      412·
      25 days ago

      So people know what not to do for selfhosting. Don’t self host in lambdas people. 🤣

      Tbh it speaks volumes that none of the hundreds of containers I run - none of them had this in the instructions “you should use serverless”.

      • jim3692@discuss.onlineEnglish
        10·
        25 days ago

        Who is self-hosting in lambdas? Isn’t the idea of self-hosting to control your infrastructure (preferably including the hardware) ?

        • Fair Fairy@thelemmy.clubOPEnglish
          12·
          25 days ago

          Exactly. Dont use lambdas.
          U can self host on lambdas, u can run personal faas - people don’t do it because servers beat fast any time

      • Yoddel_Hickory@lemmy.caEnglish
        3·
        25 days ago

        Containers kinda are the opposite of serverless, not surprising they don’t have that in their instructions.

  • queerlilhayseed@piefed.blahaj.zoneEnglish
    8·
    25 days ago

    A poor architect blames their tools. Serverless is an option among many, and it’s good for occasional atomic workloads. And, like many hot new things, it’s built with huge customers in mind and sold to everyone else who wants to be the next huge customer. It’s the architect’s job to determine whether functions are fit for their purposes. Also,

    Here’s the fundamental problem with serverless: it forces you into a request-response model that most real applications outgrew years ago.

    IDK what they consider a “real” application but plenty of software still operates this way and it works just fine. If you need a lot of background work, or low latency responses, or scheduled tasks or whatever then use something else that suits your needs, it doesn’t all have to be functions all the time.

    And if you have a higher-up that got stars in their eyes and mandated a switch to serverless, you have my pity. But if you run a dairy and you switch from cows to horses, don’t blame the horses when you can’t get milk.

  • sugar_in_your_tea@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
    3·
    25 days ago

    When building an application, consider all options. Serverless is great for background tasks that can be broken up into smaller pieces that you would otherwise need to scale up for main instances to handle, or scale up/down additional instances. It’s great for running background reports that you do t want to build a bunch of routes for.

    I would never choose serverless for the whole app architecture, but I might choose one host over another of the distinguishing feature was serverless. It’s really nice to have the option.

  • Shirasho@lemmings.worldEnglish
    2·
    25 days ago

    What wasnt conveniently covered is what happens when your container goes down and how to architect recovery. Your simple flow diagram is no longer simple.

    I generally agree with the rest of the article.

  • melfie@lemy.lolEnglish
    1·
    24 days ago

    I assume WASM will grow in popularity to ultimately replace containers and an open source serverless platform will emerge that has similar ubiquity to k8s. So far, we have projects like wasmCloud and Fermyon.

    • Fair Fairy@thelemmy.clubOPEnglish
      1·
      24 days ago

      Huh? How would wasm replace containers?
      Wasm will allow writing for web browser in golang and php. Server containers won’t go away

      • melfie@lemy.lolEnglish
        1·
        24 days ago

        If WASM+WASI existed in 2008, we wouldn’t have needed to create Docker. That’s how important it is. WebAssembly on the server is the future of computing. - Solomon Hykes (co-founder of Docker)

        • Fair Fairy@thelemmy.clubOPEnglish
          2·
          24 days ago

          Well duh. But now it’s too late. It’s not replacing docker in part because mere execution is not only thing docker does.

        • squaresinger@lemmy.worldEnglish
          1·
          23 days ago

          Considering how important WASM is, I haven’t seen a single application of it.

          WASM on the server seems especially weird since it’s not much more than a bytecode interpreter. At that point you could just use a JVM, maybe with some more cut-down API to make it more sandboxed.