Serverless deployments

Serverless is a model where your code (functions) runs in the cloud on an event/request, and the provider itself manages servers, scaling and availability; you pay only for actual invocations and execution time, and pay nothing for 'hardware' while idle. Examples: AWS Lambda, Google Cloud Functions, Azure Functions, plus serverless databases and API gateways. Honestly about 'does not fit everything', this is key: serverless is strong where the load is event-driven, irregular or unpredictable (processing uploads, webhooks, background tasks, rare APIs, spikes). For such tasks it saves money and removes the worry about servers. But for constant high load serverless is often MORE EXPENSIVE than an ordinary server/container running all the time. We honestly calculate the economics for your load. Honestly about cold start: if a function has not been called for a while, the first request may run with noticeable latency (cold start — the provider has to 'spin up' the environment). For background tasks this does not matter, but for interactive APIs requiring low latency it is a real limitation to account for. Honestly about vendor lock-in: serverless strongly ties you to a specific cloud — functions, triggers, environment are provider-specific. Migrating to another cloud later is costly. It is a conscious trade-off: convenience now versus lock-in. Honestly about limits: there are execution-time limits (long tasks do not fit), memory, size, and serverless is stateless by nature — state must be stored externally. Local debugging and development are harder than for an ordinary app. Honestly about the effect: for suitable tasks serverless removes server management, auto-scales and saves on idle, but it is not a universal solution and not 'always cheaper'. Honestly about access: an event-driven/irregular load, a cloud account are needed. An important boundary: this is serverless; container orchestration (for constant load/control) — 1067; multi-cloud — 1069. Picture this: instead of 'keeping and paying for a server for rare tasks' — functions on demand paying per invocation, WHERE it is genuinely beneficial. The base price starts from 60,000 ₽ (depends on the number of functions and integrations).

• The load is event-driven/irregular — keeping a constant server is uneconomical.
• You do not want to manage servers and scaling manually.
• You want serverless but the load is constant high — it may be more expensive.
• A past serverless setup gave cold start and lock-in without accounting for consequences.

• An honest assessment: does serverless fit your load or is a server cheaper
• Serverless function implementation (triggers, integrations, environment)
• Accounting for cold start (where latency is critical — measures or an alternative)
• Storing state externally (serverless is stateless)
• Honest boundaries (for event-driven load; more expensive at constant high; cold start; vendor lock-in; time/resource limits)
• An economics calculation for your load
• Function monitoring and logging
• Handover and review with you

• Code execution on demand without managing servers (where it fits)
• Auto-scaling and pay-per-invocation
• An honest assessment: at constant load a server may be cheaper
• Honest boundaries (cold start; vendor lock-in; limits; not for long/stateful)

• We assess the load profile and calculate economics (serverless vs server)
• If it fits — we implement functions, triggers, state storage
• We account for cold start and lock-in, honestly set boundaries with you

• Is serverless always cheaper than an ordinary server?

  No, honestly: serverless is cheaper for event-driven, irregular load (you pay only for invocations, nothing while idle). But at CONSTANT high load functions running all the time are often MORE EXPENSIVE than an ordinary server/container. It all depends on the load profile. We will honestly calculate the economics for your task rather than promise 'always cheaper'.

• What is cold start and is it a problem?

  Honestly: if a function has not been called for a while, the first request may run with noticeable latency — the provider has to 'spin up' the environment (cold start). For background/rare tasks this does not matter. But for interactive APIs requiring low latency it is a real limitation. We honestly account for it: either accept it (background), or apply measures (warming), or recommend non-serverless if latency is critical.

• Does serverless tie you to one cloud?

  Yes, honestly: serverless is strongly tied to a specific provider — functions, triggers, environment are specific (vendor lock-in). Migrating to another cloud later is costly. Plus serverless is stateless and has execution-time limits — long/stateful tasks fit poorly. These are conscious trade-offs. We honestly state them before implementation rather than pass serverless off as a no-compromise solution.