(no title)
tylerdurden91 | 2 years ago
In this case, they probably should have used Step Functions Express, which charges based on duration as opposed to number of transitions and they're looking for "on host orchestration" like orchestrate a bunch of things which usually are done in small time and are done over & over many times. Step functions is better when workflows are running longer, and exactly once semantics are needed. Link for reading differences between Express & standard step functions: https://docs.aws.amazon.com/en_us/step-functions/latest/dg/c....
This also exemplifies the fact that I learned while being at Amazon & AWS that Amazon themselves dont know how best to use AWS. This being one of the great examples. I'll share 1 more:
- In my team within AWS, we were building a new service, and someone proposed to build a whole new micro service to monitor the progress of requests to ensure we dont drop requests. As soon I mentioned about visibility timeout in SQS queues, the whole need for the service went away. Saving Amazon money ($$) & time (also $$). But if I or someone else didn't mention, we would have built it.
I dont think serverless is a silver bullet, but I don't think this is a great example of when not to use serverless. It helps to know the differences between various services and when to use what.
PS: Ex Amazon & AWS here. I have nothing to gain or lose by AWS usage going up or down. I'm currently using a serverless architecture for my new startup which may bias my opinions here.
tylerdurden91|2 years ago
If the article said fargate, which is technically still serverless we could have avoided a whole microservice vs monolith debate or serverless vs hosts/instances debate.