Re:Ask HN: Have you shipped anything serious with a “serverl...
by deanCommie on Thursday June 28, 2018 @02:43AM
(#17414592)
DynamoDB, Aurora, Kinesis, etc all existed BEFORE Lambda, and noone called them "serverless" until Lambda and now everything is called that.
Meanwhile Kinesis requires you to specify the number of shards you have to use, so there is management even if they're not called "servers".
> No need to worry about deciding how much CPU power, RAM, or storage you'll need for it.
You realize you specify the RAM for lambda functions, which correlates to CPU.
And with Dynamo you specify RCUs and WCUs and you enable autoscaling which adds more...
I'm not trying to be pedantic about "The cloud being just someone else's servers". I mean that "serverless" to mean is a very explicit thing about Lambda and writing stateless code. And every existing hosted multi-tenant service shouldn't just be dubbed that.
When you create a DB with DynamoDB, you're just telling AWS "I need a database" and it gives you one. No need to worry about deciding how much CPU power, RAM, or storage you'll need for it.
> It seems that every every "hosted" solution is now being dubbed "serverless". :\
Got a good example of something being called "serverless" that you don't think should be? I mean, yes, DynamoDB, Lambda, etc. are all running on servers. But the idea is that you don't manage them. No packages to keep up to date. No worrying about whether or not the instance size you chose is big enough. No dealing with autoscaling to meet demand when a million reddit users hit your app.