Serverless architecture, or FaaS (Function-as-a-Service) is a modern, cost effective, and efficient way to deploy applications. It removes the need for dedicated hardware or virtual machines for running code and allows users to quickly deploy applications without the need for server management. Despite its advantages, there are a few features of serverless architecture that are absent or not present.
The first feature that isn’t present in serverless architecture is scalability. While applications that use serverless architecture can easily be scaled up or down to accommodate changing user demand, scaling is limited by the underlying infrastructure, provider, and the pricing model used. For example, AWS Fargate allows users to increase their computing power but comes with a fixed fee regardless of usage.
The second feature that isn’t present in serverless architecture is reliability. Since serverless applications are deployed in an unreliable environment across ephemeral instances, they can suffer from unexpected outages. This can cause applications to be slow or unavailable from time to time, making serverless applications less reliable than traditional applications running on dedicated or virtualized hardware.
The third feature that isn’t present in serverless architecture is security. While serverless architectures provide basic security measures such as authentication, authorization, and encryption, they don’t provide the same level of security as dedicated on-premises hardware or dedicated virtual private servers. This makes serverless architecture less secure than traditional applications.
The fourth feature that isn’t present in serverless architecture is cost-efficiency. While the cost of running serverless applications is relatively low when compared to traditional applications, the cost of running them can increase quickly due to unpredictable use patterns and the lack of control over the underlying infrastructure. It’s also important to keep in mind that serverless architectures are not always suitable for long-running tasks or jobs.
The fifth feature that isn’t present in serverless architecture is portability. Serverless architectures are built on specific providers and can’t be easily ported to another provider. This makes migrating existing applications to a different provider difficult, thus limiting the portability of applications built using serverless architectures.
Serverless Cant Be Used For Long Running Tasks
One of the features not found in serverless architecture is the ability to use it for long-running tasks or jobs. Since serverless architecture relies on ephemeral instances, these instances can be terminated at any time, making it unsuitable for jobs that need to run continuously or for a long period of time. This limits the usability of serverless architecture for tasks such as data processing, streaming and analytics.
It’s important to note that while serverless architectures are not suitable for long-running tasks, they can be used for shorter tasks such as data processing and analysis. In these cases, serverless architectures can be used to set up an event-driven architecture where tasks are performed whenever an event is triggered.
Another limitation of using serverless architectures for long-running tasks is that the underlying infrastructure may be deallocated or decommissioned at any time, resulting in the loss of the application or task. This could lead to data loss and other potentially costly issues, making it vital to ensure that any long-running tasks are placed in a more reliable infrastructure.
Serverless Applications Are Not Easy To Migrate
Another feature not found in serverless architectures is the ability to easily migrate applications to another provider. Since serverless applications are built on specific providers and rely on proprietary features, they can’t be easily ported to another provider. This makes migrating existing applications to a different provider difficult, thus limiting the portability of applications built using serverless architectures.
It’s important to keep in mind that migrating applications from one provider to another can be time consuming and costly. Therefore, before deciding to use serverless architectures, it’s important to consider the cost and effort required to migrate the application to another provider in the future.
One approach to mitigate this issue is to use containers such as Docker or Kubernetes. Containers allow applications to be packaged and deployed in any environment, making it possible to run an application across multiple cloud providers as well as on-premises environments.
Another approach is to use a ‘serverless-first’ approach. This involves building the application with serverless architectures in mind, making it easier to migrate to another provider in the future. This approach also ensures that the underlying infrastructure is abstracted away from the application, making it easier to deploy on different providers.
Serverless Applications Have Limited Customization
Another feature not present in serverless architectures is the ability to customize applications or infrastructure. Serverless architectures are built on a specific provider and rely on proprietary features, making it difficult to customize applications or underlying infrastructure.
It’s important to note that while serverless architectures may be well suited for specific tasks such as running a website or processing data in the cloud, they may not be suitable for applications that require a lot of customization. Customizing the applications or the underlying infrastructure may be difficult, if not impossible, in serverless architectures.
One way to mitigate this issue is to use containers to package and deploy applications. Containers provide more flexibility and portability than serverless architectures, allowing applications to be packaged and deployed anywhere. Additionally, with containers it is possible to customize the applications or the infrastructure according to the requirements.
Another way to mitigate this issue is to use a hybrid cloud approach. A hybrid cloud approach combines public clouds, private clouds, and on-premise resources, making it possible to mix and match different types of infrastructure and services. This allows for more flexibility and customization, and is the best option for applications or tasks that require a lot of customization or require specific features not available in serverless architectures.
Serverless Offer Limited Debugging Capabilities
Another feature not present in serverless architectures is the ability to debug applications. Since serverless applications are deployed across ephemeral instances, debugging can be difficult, as these instances can be terminated at any time.
It’s important to note that most cloud providers do offer debugging tools, but these tools are limited in scope and may not be suitable for complex applications or tasks. Additionally, debugging can be time consuming and costly, as applications may need to be redeployed multiple times in order to identify the issue.
One way to overcome this issue is to use the cloud provider’s monitoring and logging services. By using these services, it is possible to identify the issue and take corrective action such as redeploying the application.
Another approach is to use serverless architectures alongside other platforms such as containers or virtual machines. This allows for more advanced debugging capabilities, as it is possible to deploy debugging tools to the underlying infrastructure. Additionally, with containers and virtual machines it is possible to redeploy the application more quickly and easily.
Serverless Cant Offer Guaranteed Performance
One of the features not found in serverless architectures is the ability to guarantee performance. Since serverless architectures use ephemeral instances and rely on the underlying infrastructure, the performance of applications can vary depending on the usage patterns and the underlying hardware. Additionally, performance of applications can vary from one provider to another.
It’s important to keep in mind that some providers may be more suitable for certain types of tasks, such as running a microservice or processing data in the cloud. Therefore, it’s important to identify the needs of the application and select a provider that can meet those needs.
One approach to mitigate this issue is to use a multi-cloud strategy. This involves deploying applications or tasks across multiple cloud providers, thus allowing applications to take advantage of the features and performance available in each provider.
Another approach is to use containers. Containers can be used to package and deploy applications across different cloud providers and on-premises environments, thus allowing for more control over the underlying infrastructure and the performance of applications.
