Are traditional servers dead? Far from it. This article looks at why, despite serverless models finding great utility in specific circumstances, there's a barrier to more widespread adoption.
Or so the battle cry of the serverless revolution goes. Take even a quick glance through the industry press of the last few years, and it would be easy to conclude that the traditional server model is dead, and that within a few years we will all be running serverless architectures.
As anyone who works in the industry knows, and as we've also pointed out in our article on the state of serverless computing, this isn't true. Despite many articles expounding the virtues of the serverless revolution, it has not come to pass. In fact, recent research indicates that the revolution may have already stalled.
Some of the promises made for serverless models have undoubtedly been realized, but not all of them. Not by a long shot.
LaunchDarkly Feature Management Platform.Dynamically control the availability of application features to your users. Start Free Trial.
In this article, I want to take a look at why, despite serverless models finding great utility in specific, well-defined circumstances, it seems that the lack of agility and flexibility of these systems is still a bar to their more widespread adoption.
Before we get to the problems with serverless computing, let's look at what it was supposed to provide. The promises of the serverless revolution have been multiple and – at times – very ambitious.
For those new to the term, a quick definition. Serverless computing refers to an architecture in which applications (or parts of applications) run on-demand within execution environments that are typically hosted remotely. That said, it's also possible to host serverless systems in-house. Building resilient, serverless systems has been a major concern of sysadmins and SaaS companies alike over the past few years, because (it is claimed) this architecture offers several key advantages over the “traditional” server and client model:
In short, this means that serverless models are supposed to deliver flexible, cheap, scalable solutions. When put like that, it’s amazing that we didn’t come up with this idea earlier.
Mismanagement of multi-cloud expense costs an arm and leg to business and its management has become a major pain point. Here we break down some crucial tips to take some of the management challenges off your plate and help you optimize your cloud spend.
Companies need to be thinking long-term before even starting a software development project. These needs are solved at the level of architecture: business owners want to assure agility, scalability, and performance.
Creating a Cloud Migration Framework gives you a tool for management, accountability, and status reporting. This article looks at three common phases of the migration.
On-prem development proves cumbersome, time-consuming and expensive, while cloud-native architecture allows for better transparency, rapid innovation and quick changes. The article explores key benefits of cloud-native architecture for software product development.
To move or not to move? Benefits are multifold when you are migrating to the cloud. Get the correct information to make your decision, with our cloud engineering expertise.