I cringe every time I hear someone going "fully Serverless" or NoSQL or whatever is popular these days.
From the article, it mentions Torri, a site that is ~1.5 millionth in Alexa rank. I understand they probably have a backend with different server loads, but I highly doubt going fully Serverless has benefitted them for this particular site. A 1.5m Alexa rank is less than 5,000 page views a month.
> Serverless, because we like to sleep at night.
No, this is a solved problem already. Spin up a load balancer in front of your web servers, add health checks, and go take a peaceful sleep.
Using react, and then creating a static site, trying to beat the 50mb Lambda by deleting readmes and test, and the fact that you hope AWS would do something for the 500ms warm up time... They are big hints you are doing something wrong.
I'm not against Serverless, and I understand it has it's place. Just don't go overboard.
2 comments
[ 3.9 ms ] story [ 15.4 ms ] threadFrom the article, it mentions Torri, a site that is ~1.5 millionth in Alexa rank. I understand they probably have a backend with different server loads, but I highly doubt going fully Serverless has benefitted them for this particular site. A 1.5m Alexa rank is less than 5,000 page views a month.
> Serverless, because we like to sleep at night.
No, this is a solved problem already. Spin up a load balancer in front of your web servers, add health checks, and go take a peaceful sleep.
Using react, and then creating a static site, trying to beat the 50mb Lambda by deleting readmes and test, and the fact that you hope AWS would do something for the 500ms warm up time... They are big hints you are doing something wrong.
I'm not against Serverless, and I understand it has it's place. Just don't go overboard.