re: Fullstack Serverless VIEW POST

TOP OF THREAD FULL DISCUSSION
re: I don't think it's just about saving resources and squeezing more performance out of your services. It's about focus on solving business problems o...
 

I hate to say it, but i really don't understand the business case for serverless architecture at all. There are so many good tools for orchestrating servers and dynamically scaling them. I don't understand why they need to be taken out of the picture, unless there is some cost saving involved.

Having a server, even on AWS, doesn't lock you in very much. I can grab my configs and plop them on another server, change the DNS, and get back to rolling in less than a few hours. The only 'gotchas' i can think of is that AWS instances handle certificate generation and have a nice firewall configuration system, but this can all be handled at the command line on any linux box.

If you're dependent on the high level stuff and the provider you're moving to doesn't provide feature X or have any import facility, you're stuck. Which is exactly what your hosting provider would prefer.

Amazon keeps adding more and more of these proprietary things. It reminds me of how Microsoft managed to lock people into their technologies for a long time.

I think it's too early to say much about this.

Maybe the serverless people are right, and serverless tech helps people to build better systems without the need for extra DevOps folk and these small companies will overtake the bigger ones who have pay for and manage their giant IT teams.

Maybe containers and VMs will win because serverless was a false promise and you have to have these giant expensive teams to manage those systems.


I have the feeling the stuff you are talking about, orchestration and scaling, will move into the cloud and people who do their own stuff in-house will burn money and time and lose in the long run to the people who have more money and time left because they didn't do it.

But that's just my opinion and it can be wrong.

You know, i run a pair of servers for one company i also do web development for. We got away from managed servers because it was just too expensive.

I might spend an hour a month on average tinkering on these servers. And both of these servers have to be PCI compliant, so there is a decent amount of work to do, and i have to keep up with security.

This has been my responsibility for over 7 years.

I imagine that when you write an app to work "serverless", you have to write it around the idea of a serverless architecture. It may be worse than that, and that you have to target amazon or microsoft's architecture.

In either case, you are potentially backing yourself into a corner when you develop a new app.

Yes, someone has to be the test hamster for these new technologies.. i just can't see a good reason to tell any of my clients that we should go this way.

code of conduct - report abuse