Comment by abrax3141
3 years ago
I may be misunderstanding, but it looks like the micro-services comparison here is based on very high usage. Another use for micro-services, like lambda, is exactly the opposite. If you have very low usage, you aren't paying for cycles you don't use the way you would be if you either owned the machine, or rented it from AWS or DO and left it on all the time (which you'd have to do in order to serve that randomly-arriving one hit per day!)
If you have microservices that truly need to be separate services and have very little usage, you probably should use things like serverless computing. It scales down to 0 really well.
However, if you have a microservice with very little usage, turning that service into a library is probably a good idea.
Yes. I think that the former case is the situation we’re in. Lambdas are annoying (the whole AWS is annoying!) but, as you say, scales to 0 very well.
Why open yourself to random $300k bills from Amazon when the alternative is wasting a $5/month server?
I don’t understand what these numbers are referring to.
One is a normal size of those rare, but not too rare bills people get from Amazon when their unused unoptmized application gets some surprise usage.
The other is how much it costs to have an always-on server paid VPS capable of answering the once a day request you specified.