Talk:Serverless computing
![]() | Computing: CompSci C‑class Mid‑importance | |||||||||||||||||||
|
About merging serverless computing with Function as a Service
(merging Serverless computing with Function as a Service)
I object. According to [1], serverless encompasses FaaS and mobile backend as a service. Admittedly I have seen other articles where serverless is a synonym for FaaS. JnRouvignac (talk) 08:51, 31 July 2016 (UTC)
Mildly object. I think that serverless computing is broader than just FaaS and should include PaaS, so these aren't the same thing. The FaaS article should be more widely developed since there is plenty more to say about it. StacksofHoy (talk) 12:49, 15 August 2016 (UTC)
It's just such a big topic, and so fast moving - I'd let them all have their own page. "traditional music" "folk music" - sure, lots of overlap but plenty to be said about each sense. I think the warning can be taken down and leave it as is for now - maybe in three years the terms will be more settled and one or two can be eliminated. 24.42.191.195 (talk) 20:16, 11 November 2016 (UTC)
I second the mild objection to FaaS and serverless being combined. Serverless is less about functions as payloads of executions, and more about not having to administer servers. --Huntc (talk) 05:40, 3 March 2017 (UTC)
Third the objection. I disagree that BaaS systems that require you to purchase fixed-price plans are serverless, but certain serverless does and will extend well beyond FaaS platforms. The hallmark of serverless to me is pay as you go/metered billing.
Note that "AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Functions and Microsoft Azure Functions" appear in both articles as the manifestation of the title. this says something. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 185.127.10.42 (talk) 13:48, 2 July 2017 (UTC)
We now see "serverless apps" cited as a top security issue [2], and so it might be helpful to have a direct Wiki reference to this, even if it redirects to severless computing.CeleryStickz (talk) 17:59, 7 December 2017 (UTC)
The quality of this article is abysmal. It seems to be an assessment of current offerings and a limited comparison of their features while avoiding using specific names of platforms. I particularly object to the assessment that FaaS is inherently insecure because it is FaaS. I'm currently looking for a FaaS solution with structured role based access control on a per-function basic. I also object to the assessment of performance related to the time required to start engines. Performance on systems based on some technologies may suffer performance issues related to the reasoning mentioned, however other systems which employ AoT compilers would have problems related to cold-start, other platforms might have the engines for the platform running at all times and simply suffer delays while obtaining the function itself from a document store. Finally, most performance issues could be avoided by compiling and caching functions on commit. I would fix the article myself, but have absolutely no idea where to begin as it is so poorly written I would need to perform proper research and start from scratch. Is it possible to simply revoke an article or label it as horrible? User:submux 11:17, 12 December 2017 (UTC)
No Servers? No Servers?
There isn't anything in the article to explain how there are no servers. Is it peer to peer? How does it work without any DNS Servers, Web Servers or even Internet etc... completely Serverless? ZhuLien (talk) 18:00, 10 January 2018 (UTC) — Preceding unsigned comment added by 115.70.207.235 (talk)