Our serverless applications become a lot more interesting when they interact with third-party APIs like Twilio, SendGrid, Twitter, MailChimp, Stripe, IBM Watson and others. Most of these APIs respond relatively quickly (within a few hundred milliseconds or so), allowing us to include them in the execution of synchronous workflows (like our own API calls). Sometimes we run these calls asynchronously as background tasks completely disconnected from any type of front end user experience.
Regardless how they’re executed, the Lambda functions calling them need to stay running while they wait for a response. Unfortunately, Step Functions don’t have a way to create HTTP requests and wait for a response. And even if they did, you’d at least have to pay for the cost of the transition, which can get a bit expensive at scale. This may not seem like a big deal on the surface, but depending on your memory configuration, the cost can really start to add up.
In this post we’ll look at the impact of memory configuration on the performance of remote API calls, run a cost analysis, and explore ways to optimize our Lambda functions to minimize cost and execution time when dealing with third-party APIs.
Thinking about microservices, especially their communication patterns, can be a bit of a mind-bending experience for developers. The idea of splitting an application into several (if not hundreds of) independent services, can leave even the most experienced developer scratching their head and questioning their choices. Add serverless event-driven architecture into the mix, eliminating the idea of state between invocations, and introducing a new per function concurrency model that supports near limitless scaling, it’s not surprising that many developers find this confusing. 😕 But it doesn’t have to be. 😀
In this post, we’ll outline a few principles of microservices and then discuss how we might implement them using serverless. If you are familiar with microservices and how they communicate, this post should highlight how these patterns are adapted to fit a serverless model. If you’re new to microservices, hopefully you’ll get enough of the basics to start you on your serverless microservices journey. We’ll also touch on the idea of orchestration versus choreography and when one might be a better choice than the other with serverless architectures. I hope you’ll walk away from this realizing both the power of the serverless microservices approach and that the basic fundamentals are actually quite simple. 👊
“What? You can’t use MySQL with serverless functions, you’ll just exhaust all the connections as soon as it starts to scale! And what about zombie connections? Lambda doesn’t clean those up for you, meaning you’ll potentially have hundreds of sleeping threads blocking new connections and throwing errors. It can’t be done!” ~ Naysayer
I really like DynamoDB and BigTable (even Cosmos DB is pretty cool), and for most of my serverless applications, they would be my first choice as a datastore. But I still have a love for relational databases, especially MySQL. It had always been my goto choice, perfect for building normalized data structures, enforcing declarative constants, providing referential integrity, and enabling ACID-compliant transactions. Plus the elegance of SQL (structured query language) makes organizing, retrieving and updating your data drop dead simple.
But now we have SERVERLESS. And Serverless functions (like AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Functions, and Azure Functions) scale almost infinitely by creating separate instances for each concurrent user. This is a MAJOR PROBLEM for RDBS solutions like MySQL, because available connections can be quickly maxed out by concurrent functions competing for access. Reusing database connections doesn’t help, and even the release of Aurora Serverless doesn’t solve the
max_connections problem. Sure there are some tricks we can use to mitigate the problem, but ultimately, using MySQL with serverless is a massive headache.
Well, maybe not anymore. 😀 I’ve been dealing with MySQL scaling issues and serverless functions for years now, and I’ve finally incorporated all of my learning into a simple, easy to use NPM module that (I hope) will solve your Serverless MySQL problems.
It’s official! I’m going to AWS re:Invent 2018. 🙌
My goal from this trip is to learn, learn, learn… and then share, share, share. There are over 30 sessions that talk about serverless, plus 40,000 other people there to meet and learn from! I’m so excited. 🙃
I know that many of you will be there, but for those of you who can’t be, I’ll do my best to share insights, tips, how-tos, best practices and more. I’ll even have a drink for you if you’d like 🍺 (no arm twisting necessary)!
I’m a huge fan of building microservices with serverless systems. Serverless gives us the power to focus on just the code and our data without worrying about the maintenance and configuration of the underlying compute resources. Cloud providers (like AWS), also give us a huge number of managed services that we can stitch together to create incredibly powerful, and massively scalable serverless microservices.
I’ve read a lot of posts that mention serverless microservices, but they often don’t go into much detail. I feel like that can leave people confused and make it harder for them to implement their own solutions. Since I work with serverless microservices all the time, I figured I’d compile a list of design patterns and how to implement them in AWS. I came up with 19 of them, though I’m sure there are plenty more.
In this post we’ll look at all 19 in detail so that you can use them as templates to start designing your own serverless microservices.
It was the best of times, it was the worst of times, it was the age of wisdom, it was the age of foolishness… ~ A Tale of Two Cities by Charles Dickens
There is a revolution happening in the tech world. An emerging paradigm that’s letting development teams focus on business value instead of technical orchestration. It is helping teams create and iterate faster, without worrying about the limits or configurations of an underlying infrastructure. It is enabling the emergence of new tools and services that foster greater developer freedom. Freedom to experiment. Freedom to do more with less. Freedom to immediately create value by publishing their work without the traditional barriers created by operational limits.
Writing serverless functions brings developers closer and closer to the stack that runs their code. While this gives them a tremendous amount of freedom, it also adds additional responsibility. Serverless applications require developers to think more about security and optimizations, as well as perform other tasks that were traditionally assigned to operations teams. And of course, code quality and proper testing continue to be at the top of the list for production-level applications. In this post, we’ll look at how to add test coverage to our Node.js applications and how we can apply it to our Serverless framework projects. ⚡️
As more and more developers and companies adopt serverless architecture, the likelihood of hackers exploiting these applications increases dramatically. The shared security model of cloud providers extends much further with serverless offerings, but application security is still the developer’s responsibility. There has been a lot of hype about #NoOPS with serverless environments 🤥, which is simply not true 😡. Many traditional applications are frontended with WAFs (web application firewalls), RASPs (runtime application self-protection), EPPs (endpoint protection platforms) and WSGs (web security gateways) that inspect incoming and outgoing traffic. These extra layers of protection can save developers from themselves when making common programming mistakes that would otherwise leave their applications vulnerable. With serverless, these all go away. 😳