deleugpn

Then your EC2 instance suddenly stops working and your downtime cost you a fat contract that makes the cost of serverless a pocket change.

If you want to compare AWS Lambda with EC2, you need to bring in AWS Load Balancer, Auto Scaling, Security Upgrades for the OS, Healthcheck and many more.

Yes, Lambda is not needed in a lot of context, but if you have the expertise to use it and you want to provide enterprise-grade compliance, it's a walk in the park.

The GB-second is the relevant cost of AWS Lambda. # of invocations is pretty irrelevant.

60'000'000 requests

1536MB RAM

300ms response avg

(calculation includes free tier):

Request costs: $11.80/month

Execution costs: $443.42/month

Total AWS Lambda costs: $455.22/month

That ballpark is not even close to the park. My company spends ~$500/month on AWS Lambda and we're doing about 2M/req/day with Bref. There's still 12B 940M requests to account for

As you can see on the website (https://bref.sh/) there's 13 billion monthly AWS Lambda invocations using Bref (PHP).

It's cheaper than most options where you need to pay a human to manage something with the same level of scalability and security that AWS provides.

At this point, doesn't it make more sense to just throw away the original where condition and use only the redundant condition? If it's really redundant and makes no different to the result, why keeping the inefficient clause be useful once the new/better clause has been added?

When what you need is just to build a web product.