But the difference between a 2010-era Rails app and serverless is operational more than it is architectural.
-
-
A serverless app is assumed to live in a demand-driven infrastructure that can scale instantly to arbitrary numbers of requests.
1 reply 1 retweet 0 likes -
It abstracts away an entire layer of operational responsibility, which makes it attractive to people who are comfortable higher up-stack.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Isn't that pretty similar to deploying a rails app to Heroku? Or is there a nuance I'm missing?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Serverless apps are expected to run for a few milliseconds at a time (they are billed per ms) and scale instantly from 0 to 000's of rps.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like -
So similar in concept but at a couple of orders of magnitude faster startup and shorter duration.
2 replies 0 retweets 1 like -
Ok so not quite rails (which uses more like a FastCGI model than CGI) but similar to PHP/CGI?
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
(PHP is so sure of its short duration that its GC strategy is "you don't need one"
)1 reply 0 retweets 3 likes -
Yes. It would be like a PHP application that you only pay for when it's actively responding to a request.
1 reply 0 retweets 0 likes -
Most PHP apps are fcgi nowadays. The cost isn’t too bad. I am also playing with embedding php into rustling to make request startup faster.
1 reply 0 retweets 1 like
FCGI was an epic hack that kept the "shared-nothing" alive as long as you followed some basic rules. It's what I'm saying Rails did :)
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.