openwhisk-dev mailing list archives

Site index · List index
Message view « Date » · « Thread »
Top « Date » · « Thread »
From Nick Mitchell <moose...@gmail.com>
Subject Re: Supporting user-configurable warm action containers?
Date Thu, 31 May 2018 11:34:16 GMT
for nodejs at least: the cost of a few requires of common packages can
easily get you up to the 150-200ms range (e.g. request is a big hitter; and
this is all on top of the cost of starting a container!). perhaps, for
nodejs at least, there are only a few options, ultimately: user pays more
for idle resources; provider pays more for idle stem cells; or users take a
very hard line on the modules they import.

switching to other (compiled) runtimes might help, e.g. with the recent
work on precompiled go and swift actions? we'd still be left with the
container start times, but at least this is something we can control, e.g.
by requiring users to pay more for access to a larger prewarmed pool?

nick


On Thu, May 31, 2018 at 7:22 AM, James Thomas <jthomas.uk@gmail.com> wrote:

> One of most frequent complaints[1][2][3] I hear from developers using
> serverless platforms is coping with cold-start latency when dealing with
> sudden bursts of traffic.
>
> Developers often ask for a feature where they can set the number of warm
> containers kept in the cache for a function. This would allow them to keep
> a higher number of warm containers for applications with bursty traffic
> and/or upgrade the cached number prior to an anticpated burst of traffic
> arriving. This would be exposed by the managed platforms as a chargable
> feature.
>
> Is this something we could support on OpenWhisk? Ignoring the complexity
> and feasibility of any solution, from a developer POV I can image having an
> action annotation `max-warm` which would set the maximum number of warm
> containers allowed in the cache.
>
> Tyson is currently working on concurrent activation processing, which is
> one approach to reducing cold-start delays[4]. However, there are some
> downsides to concurrent activations, like no runtime isolation for request
> processing, which might make this feature inappropraite for some users.
>
> [1]
> https://www.reddit.com/r/aws/comments/6w1hip/how_many_
> successive_lambda_invocations_will_use_a/
> [2]
> https://twitter.com/search?f=tweets&vertical=default&q=%20%
> 23AWSWishlist%20warm&src=typd
> [3]
> https://theburningmonk.com/2018/01/im-afraid-youre-
> thinking-about-aws-lambda-cold-starts-all-wrong/
> [4] - https://github.com/apache/incubator-openwhisk/pull/2795
>
> --
> Regards,
> James Thomas
>

Mime
  • Unnamed multipart/alternative (inline, None, 0 bytes)
View raw message