* video encoding;
* ETL processes;
* other analytical workloads;
* long-running websocket connections with Twitter/Facebook/etc APIs.
From my perspective, serverless solves the "boring" part of making REST APIs easier to manage, which were already very easy to manage.
How would serverless be applies to, say, a python script that streams Twitter tweets using websockets?
[0] https://aws.amazon.com/sqs/ [1] https://aws.amazon.com/kinesis/
Either it works with web-hooks that you could lead to a Lambda via API-Gateway.
Or it needs to pull the data, then you could trigger Lambda via CloudWatch intervals.
I guess you could argue where to draw the "serverless" line, at functions or containers, but Zeit is calling this container service "serverless" so I think Fargate would fall into the same category. I think it would make sense for Zeit to eventually support long-running containers too (looks like the current max is 30 minutes, I'm not sure how they chose that number)
I think this is the issue/risk with serverless. You either get locked into one of the big 3, or you end up doing all of the ops work to run your own stateful systems. As some of the people above you said, managing and scaling the stateless HTTP components is not the hard/expensive part of the job.
But the primary utility of serverless is an attempt at solving Amazon's problem of being commoditized by containers.
Can we please call it "stateless" instead of "serverless"?
1) you don’t have to manage infrastructure
2) you don’t have to think about infrastructure (what size cluster do i need to buy?)
3) you pay for what you use at a granular level. (GB stored, queries made, function invocations, etc)
4) scale to zero (when not in use, you don’t pay for much of anything)
Most things don’t hit all of these points, but typical managed services hit very few of these points. Sure, I can use a managed MySQL, but it only satisfies 1 of the 4 points.