News for hackers. Stuff that matters.

A comment on Serverless: slower and more expensive. Parent comment

Re:Serverless: slower and more expensive by EwanToo on Monday September 23, 2019 @04:08AM (#21046874)
If they had used an ALB instead of API Gateway, the cost might well have been a 2x increase, especially given that would replace the ELB they're already using. The ALB option has it's own caveats though...
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Serverless: slower and more expensive by einaregilsson on Monday September 23, 2019 @05:17AM (#21047218)
Yeah, that would have been a much better fit. I just didn't know you could put ALB in front. (Also, a "load balancer" in front of serverless... , and yes I know load balancer do more than load balance.)

I mainly went with API Gateway since that's the default setup the serverless framework uses.

[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Serverless: slower and more expensive by pojzon on Monday September 23, 2019 @05:38AM (#21047299)
For AWS it was november 2018 when it was annanced. Still a pretty new thing if you ask me. Many Cloud Architects still dont understand all pros and cons of this solution.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Serverless: slower and more expensive by scarface74 on Monday September 23, 2019 @06:21AM (#21047491)
One con is that using an application load balancer with lambda restricts you to 1MB requests (and responses?) as opposed to 10 with APIGW. Lambda itself has a 6Mb limit.
[ Parent | on HN ]
Re:Serverless: slower and more expensive by primitivesuave on Monday September 23, 2019 @02:34PM (#21051994)
One frustrating caveat of the ALB approach is there is a hard 1 MB limit on both the request and response size, while APIGW has a hard 6 MB limit.
[ Parent | on HN ]