Serverless vs Virtual Machines: A Practical Comparison
Serverless changes the billing unit, the failure modes and the constraints. Where it is clearly better, where it is clearly worse, and why most systems end up using both.
Load balancers, managed databases, containers, Kubernetes, serverless and autoscaling – the architecture choices that decide what a cloud account actually has to run.
Serverless changes the billing unit, the failure modes and the constraints. Where it is clearly better, where it is clearly worse, and why most systems end up using both.
Autoscaling handles predictable variation well and sudden spikes badly. What it requires from the application, what it costs, and the failures it can disguise.
Kubernetes solves a specific set of problems very well and charges a permanent operational tax for the privilege. The signals that say you have those problems, and the ones that say you do not.
Containers change how software is packaged and deployed, not how much server you need. What genuinely improves, what gets harder, and the smallest sensible setup.
A managed database costs more per month and less per incident. What you are actually buying, what you give up, and when self-hosting is the right call.
A load balancer distributes traffic, and that is the least interesting thing it does. Health checks, TLS termination and zero-downtime deploys are usually the real reasons to add one.