Containers and serverless serve as an excellent option over traditional servers to host their applications. It’s easy, flexible and less time consuming. In both kinds of architecture, it is is less complex and more flexible to build application and they are gaining a lot of popularity. But what among the two is the best way to develop and manage your application?
1.Control over the infrastructure:
Sign up for your weekly dose of what's up in emerging technology.
Containers let the users control their own infrastructure, as opposed to serverless, which lack the control of the infrastructure. A controlled infrastructure must be implemented keeping in mind that it has to provide with the best optimization. The platform should be efficient and scalable to the developers and relevant skills are needed to be deployed. Audio-scaling will also have to be set up by the user and a complete control of the resources is available for scaling, as long as the provider allows the user to. In case of a server the user doesn’t have to manage any infrastructure. There are no operating system updates to install. The provider handles all the updates for the user. It is therefore easy to manage one’s own infrastructure.
Containers have a set of diverse and more mature set of tools, whereas serverless do not have a tools as rich as serverless does. Tools in serverless aren’t as good as containers but they are improving overtime. It has tools that are not very deep and are suitable to beginners. Containers have an excellent support for tooling.
Serverless has an advantage over this feature. The user only needs to deploy the code to his provider for the code to work and no additional Dockerfiles or Kubernetes configurations are required. Your time-to-market will be amazing.
Container-based application can be very large and complex. According to the system that the developer wants to design, it can be as large and complex as desired. Serverless computing comes with plenty of restrictions in terms of sizes. The resulting application in this case could have an amalgamation fragmented microservices, with a high degree of uncertainty about availability and latency time for each fragment. It is difficult for monitoring tools with serverless functions, since there is no access to the function’s container or container-management system.
The cost of containers is much higher than serverless computing. Containers need a long-running hosting location and are hence more expensive. The user has to pay for the server usage even if he is not using it at that time. In case of serverless, the user only has to pay for the time when the server is executing the action, as it runs only when it is given a trigger. The user pays for the services execute their function, so he only pays when the server is active.
In case of containers, it has to be ensured that all containers communicate with each other before deploying into production, every time the codebase is changed. The operating system also have to be updated all the time. All of this can slow down the development process. On the other hand, serverless computing helps in reducing the development time and thereby getting the products to the market faster.
Both, containers and serverless computing have their own pros and cons. Containers are good when the end user wants to be relieved of the infrastructure management. But this advantage also comes with a cost. Serverless computing are best suited for running applications in the public cloud. Whereas containers are useful in transforming on-premises hardware resources into a private cloud. Both serve a different purpose in cloud computing.