Skip to main content

The hidden costs of serverless and microservices

Container-based solutions were one of the best ways to reduce running costs and improve the quality attributes of a product five years ago. Nowadays, IT departments are complaining about the running cost of containers and pushing serverless as the next step to reduce the running costs.

It is important to identify why a container-based solution is seen as expensive and what are the cost vectors before saying that a serverless approach using containers is less expensive. 


A container-based solution already provides us with a degree of flexibility, allowing us to spin up & down the number of instances of services. Microsoft Azure, like other cloud vendors, provides the flexibility to run our container-based solution in dedicated or shared clusters. At this stage, I would like to mention a few available options:

(1) Dedicated cluster: Azure Kubernetes Services (cost are driven by the cluster size)

(2) Serverless approach: Azure Container App (cost are driven by the computation usage)

(3) Hypervisor isolation: Azure Container Instance (cost are driven by the computation usage)

(4) Dedicated cluster with 'overflow capacity: Azure Kubernetes Services together with Azure Container Instances

Additionally, we have Azure Functions where we can run our containers in a serverless approach when we build an event-driven solution. 

Resource reservation

The technology is already available to build solutions that are scalable and can go from 1 to 100 instances in a few seconds. As long as we have the resource available where we can spin up our instances. 

To ensure that we have the computation resources available, we start to reserve computation resources and pay for resources we don't actually need at a specific moment. When going with a serverless approach, we need to ensure that we don't end-up with the same situation, running our serverless services in a dedicated cluster to ensure that we have enough resources in the case of a spike. Otherwise, from the cost point of view, we would be in the same situation.

Compliance Regulations

Technology is one thing. Law and regulations are more important and more powerful. The current technology is giving us the ability to run our container-based solution using a pay-per-usage approach. Azure Container Instances allow us to run our services isolated from other customers that use the same cluster using hypervisor isolation. The cost model is pay per usage, and it's very scalable.

When you work under HIPAA or PCI-DSS, sharing computation resources is not allowed by regulations. You are forced to use a dedicated cluster that runs your own payload and is isolated at the network and computation layer. 

You also need the ability to monitor all the traffic, making a dedicated Kubernetes cluster like Azure Kubernetes Service a good option. As you expect, dedicated clusters are more expensive than Azure Container Instances or Azure Container App. Even if you don't need that computation power, you would need to pay for it.

In regulated industries, where computation and network isolation are mandatory, you would need dedicated resources, serverless or not, they are more expensive in comparison with other tiers or services. For example, a vCPU core for Azure Functions Premium tier would cost you ~$124/month. Yes, it is offering a lot more than the Consumption tier, but you pay per core - regardless if you use or not the computation power.

Final thoughts 

Serverless and event-driven solutions are one of the best ways how we can improve the quality attributes of our systems. In terms of costs, factors like compliance regulations and resource reservation can force us to go with 'dedicated' tiers, where serverless or not, the running cost will be more expensive. We should remember this and set clear expectations when discussing microservices and serverless approaches. 

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

Why Database Modernization Matters for AI

  When companies transition to the cloud, they typically begin with applications and virtual machines, which is often the easier part of the process. The actual complexity arises later when databases are moved. To save time and effort, cloud adoption is more of a cloud migration in an IaaS manner, fulfilling current, but not future needs. Even organisations that are already in the cloud find that their databases, although “migrated,” are not genuinely modernised. This disparity becomes particularly evident when they begin to explore AI technologies. Understanding Modernisation Beyond Migration Database modernisation is distinct from merely relocating an outdated database to Azure. It's about making your data layer ready for future needs, like automation, real-time analytics, and AI capabilities. AI needs high throughput, which can be achieved using native DB cloud capabilities. When your database runs in a traditional setup (even hosted in the cloud), in that case, you will enc...

Cloud Myths: Migrating to the cloud is quick and easy (Pill 2 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

The idea that migration to the cloud is simple, straightforward and rapid is a wrong assumption. It’s a common misconception of business stakeholders that generates delays, budget overruns and technical dept. A migration requires laborious planning, technical expertise and a rigorous process.  Migrations, especially cloud migrations, are not one-size-fits-all journeys. One of the most critical steps is under evaluation, under budget and under consideration. The evaluation phase, where existing infrastructure, applications, database, network and the end-to-end estate are evaluated and mapped to a cloud strategy, is crucial to ensure the success of cloud migration. Additional factors such as security, compliance, and system dependencies increase the complexity of cloud migration.  A misconception regarding lift-and-shits is that they are fast and cheap. Moving applications to the cloud without changes does not provide the capability to optimise costs and performance, leading to ...

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills)

Cloud Myths: Cloud is Cheaper (Pill 1 of 5 / Cloud Pills) The idea that moving to the cloud reduces the costs is a common misconception. The cloud infrastructure provides flexibility, scalability, and better CAPEX, but it does not guarantee lower costs without proper optimisation and management of the cloud services and infrastructure. Idle and unused resources, overprovisioning, oversize databases, and unnecessary data transfer can increase running costs. The regional pricing mode, multi-cloud complexity, and cost variety add extra complexity to the cost function. Cloud adoption without a cost governance strategy can result in unexpected expenses. Improper usage, combined with a pay-as-you-go model, can result in a nightmare for business stakeholders who cannot track and manage the monthly costs. Cloud-native services such as AI services, managed databases, and analytics platforms are powerful, provide out-of-the-shelve capabilities, and increase business agility and innovation. H...