AWS Lambda Reviews

AWS Lambda enables server-less architecture for seamless orchestration. We use the solution for various orchestrations. This is very useful when you would need to perform orchestrations of the different applications together. Many organisations are using this solution for web and mobile applications at scale. 

The main features of this solution are the ability to integrate multiple AWS applications or external applications very quickly and organize all of them by leveraging server-less computing power of AWS. Additionally, it is easy to use and you can run various programming languages, such as Python, Go, and Java.

There is room for improvement in user-friendliness. When comparing this solution to others it is not as user-friendly.

We have been using this solution for over five years for various server-less computing on AWS. My current employer has pioneered on this technology and serving various global clients for years. 

This solution is a serverless architecture in which you do not have to manage any infrastructure which makes it very stable.

The solution is highly scalable. 

We have plans to increase usage because most of the workload and applications are using this solution.

The technical support is managed by AWS which is good.

Azure Logic App & Function App, Google Pub-Sub etc. 

Managed by AWS

The price of the solution is reasonable and it is a pay-per-use model. It is very good for cost optimization.

I would recommend this solution to others. If you are with AWS it is better to use the serverless architecture.

I would rate AWS Lambda a nine out of ten.

The product serves as a function as a service, a serverless environment, you can say. It's a serverless environment, or, as some people call it, function as a service, FaaS.

We have been using it as a mobile backend. We have a mobile frontend, a mobile application, which uses the AWS Lambda functions running in the cloud. It serves as an API backend for a mobile application that is running in the frontend.

The solution is highly scalable.

The solution has proven itself to be stable.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

We've found the cost to be very good. It would be a great option for startups due to the low pricing.

The solution is very mature.

The user-friendliness of the solution could be improved. If it was easy to run with the same function in other platforms, other environments, that would make it more portable. That would be really good. User-friendliness and portability will be the two factors that need the most improvement.

The startup time sometimes needs to be faster, so that is one area of improvement. The startup time of each function can be slow. When it works the first time, it takes a little bit of time, so there's a minor delay. That could be improved.

The support of additional languages would improve the solution.

I've been using the solution for a couple of years at this point. It's been a while.

The solution is pretty mature by now. It's been there for a few years with AWS and they're continuously improving it. It's pretty mature. The stability is very good. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution is highly scalable and also very cost-efficient. You only pay for the time, the duration of time and that's in maybe seconds, microseconds. You pay very little until you have very large-scale users. It is ideal for startups who want to deploy applications on the cloud.

While internally only our developers really use the solution, the mobile application is used by thousands of users globally.

We do plan to increase usage and will be adding more functions to our application.

While something was used before, it likely wasn't serverless. 

I'm aware that Oracle and Azure have certain options available.

The initial setup is not overly complex or difficult. It's very straightforward. 

The deployment times vary. It really depends on what you need to deploy.

Our developers managed the implementation process. A consultant or outside integrator was not required. It was all handled in-house.

The solution is very cost-efficient.

We are using the latest version of the solution currently. I cannot say which version number it is. I don't know it off-hand.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. We've been pretty happy with the capabilities so far.

I would recommend the solution to other organizations. This is much better than the other serverless solutions.

It is useful in many scenarios. For example, in a microservices architecture where serverless functionality is required, one can use Lambda.

The basic feature that I like is that there is no server installation. It also has good support for various languages, such as Java, .NET, C#, and Python.

Its price should be improved. Its pricing is on the higher side. 

I am not sure if it currently supports the Go language. If it doesn't support the Go language, they can introduce it.

It is stable.

It is flexible and scalable. I have a couple of customers who are using Lambda. They are from the banking domain.

I've not reached out to Lambda technical support, but they should be good.

Its installation is simple. It doesn't require much effort. It hardly takes 10 to 15 minutes to make a Lambda service functional.

We had done the installation with the vendor. We have three developers for its implementation.

Its pricing is on the higher side.

I would recommend this solution to others. I would rate AWS Lambda an eight out of ten.

We have some APIs and we use some mechanisms to process these APIs. Normally, some APIs need to be hosted by some servers. However, with this product, we can compute everything serverless.

The solution is designed very well. You don't need to keep a server up. You just need some router to route your API request and Lambda provides a very well-designed feature to process the request. 

From our perspective, the solution works for a variety of scenarios.

It's very straightforward and very easy to use. We don't need to keep several apps. We just use some APIs and to route with the APIs to create related Lambda functions.

The kind of scenarios we can leverage in Lambda can be difficult. For example, we have a lot of their servers that provide APIs. Before, the APIs were hosted by a server. We have identified that some of them can be hosted in Lambda. That's a challenge as we're yet to think of our scenario and match our requirements in order to really leverage Lambda. That's more on us than the solution itself.

We need to better understand Lambda for different scenarios. We need some joint effort between Amazon and the users to have the users identify how they can really leverage Lambda. It's not about Lambda itself; it's about the practice, the guidance. There needs to be very good documentation. From the user perspective, what exists now is not always enough.

Lambda is stable. We don't see any problems so far. There haven't been bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze on us.

The solution is very scalable. We just allocated a very small number of requirements to Lambda. We've still found it to be very scalable.

We are a technology company, so we do not have many users. Most are developers, engineers, and architects.

So far, we've found the technical support to be okay. They are knowledgeable and responsive and we are satisfied with the level of support we get.

The initial setup's level of difficulty depends on different requirements. Normally, we can see that number to process and do a straight comparative analysis for a simple scenario. The deployment is fine for the most part. We don't spend much time on it in comparison to a traditional deployment. It's very quick.

When you try some services, with Amazon, the first phase is okay. When we continued with more workloads placed on Amazon, we needed to take into account the cost, as the cost to the firm becomes more and more. It can get expensive if you aren't careful.

We're just a customer. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

Lambda is very good. I don't collect feedback from other colleagues or other members. However, from my perspective, Lambda is good. I would rate it nine out of ten, based on my experience alone.

The best advice I can give other organizations is that it's better to consider your scenarios and see what is scenario is suitable for the functions or services you require, or not. Don't try to move your applications just because of new technology and new concepts. Consider carefully your requirements and that will help you avoid some additional costs.

We are a startup, and we are doing faster and cheaper storage for IT. We are going to offer our storage services in about two months, and we are starting with AWS. We do lossless compression using microservices. We do the compute in a lossless compression way similar to gzip, WinZip, or PKZIP, except that we are giving a discount to customers.

The product that we are developing is not yet in the market. We are doing alpha testing for select customers who are using AWS. The biggest advantage is that you get faster storage without doing a forklift upgrade, and you get 35% cheaper storage. So, you get 2X faster storage with a 35% to 50% lower monthly bill.

We use AWS Lambda to encode and decode data. I work on the encode and decode software. I am working with a cloud developer. He works on the Lambda deliverable and wraps my C code with his C++ wrappers. They get bundled together with no JS stuff.

The cool thing about AWS Lambda is that AWS does all the management. For compression, it is all about making the data small and then making it regular size again. We have an encode function and a decode function. AWS Lambda schedules each of those for us. It has a load balancer and all the fancy stuff, depending on the demand.

The most valuable part of AWS Lambda is that I only need to write the software. I need to write two functions, and my cloud developer turns them into two AWS Lambda instances. That's it.

One area of improvement is to include support for more programming languages. AWS Lambda does not support a lot of programming languages. You have to write the Lambda functions in a certain programming language. We are using C++. My developer knows a couple of other languages. Python is his favorite language, but Python is not supported in AWS Lambda.

I have been using AWS Lambda since it came out in 2016.

It is very stable.

Its scalability is great. We write an encode function, and my cloud developer turns that into an AWS Lambda instance. We then write a decode function, and he turns it into another AWS Lambda instance. We just hook it up and use an API gateway for doing the security check, encryption, and other things.

We did not require any support. Most of the stuff in the cloud is anyways self-serve.

The initial setup was straightforward.

They have a program for AWS customers called Activate. With the Activate program, you can get compute and storage credits. They gave us like $10,000 worth of credit over 18 months.

I would recommend using this solution. It was the first microservice. It doesn't have much overhead, and it does what it claims to do. 

I would rate AWS Lambda an eight out of ten. It is a good solution.

Our primary use case is for our financial institutions. We use it for many customers that we work with. We develop solutions for our customers and run them on AWS. We wanted to build the solution on the public cloud and out of all the public cloud providers, AWS is the best. It has a rich set of services. 

It's a serverless solution which is the best feature. It helps us because it offers free aspects. From the infrastructure perspective, it helps us manage costs. There is no overhead of estimating how much infrastructure we're going to need. We can focus on building the business functionality that we want to build. 

Lambda didn't use to support all the capabilities, if you wanted to initialize it before started serving the requests, it is not possible. In the most recent upgrades, they have added this feature. There is nothing missing. If there is something missing, AWS has other solutions that covers it. I look at Lambda as a piece of AWS, working in conjunction with other solutions.  

I have been using AWS for two and a half years. 

We don't have any issues with stability or scalability. We have offline and online users. There are thousands of online users. 

Their support is excellent. We have no complaints. It can be expensive, we bought the enterprise support. If you don't want to spend the money, you might run into issues but that isn't the case for us. 

Everything was set up in the public cloud. We didn't need to set up a lot of things. We didn't have to connect a lot of connectivities to external applications. If you are setting it up on hybrid solution, there is a lot of work that needs to go in. You need to understand what your organization's security standards are, how the different teams are going to access the infrastructure, etc. For hybrid, it will take a lot of time but for only the public cloud, it is quite easy. 

AWS is slightly more expensive than Azure. But from a maturity perspective, AWS is way more ahead than Azure. 

I would rate it a nine out of ten. It was missing features like initialization but they are available now in the latest release. 

It is good for smaller companies that don't have a lot of staff that will manage the infrastructure. It automatically scales based on the users and allocating the resources. From a cost perspective, it is quite cheap. It takes out a lot of overhead. If it's for a large company with a lot of experts, there are other good solutions. 

Primarily, I work with all my clients to provide them with solutions. We are a service company, so we work with clients to define and build applications that resolve their need for automation issues. I create the solutions, and then there is a delivery team of mine which works to deliver that solution to the client.  

The thing that I have found most valuable in Lambda is primarily the ease of developing the services we distribute. We can easily develop the solutions using any language which is available today — this includes all the primary and new-age languages.  

Secondly, because it is a cloud service technology, we do not have to worry about the infrastructure behind the solutions we provide. Everything is all on the cloud and there is no maintenance and we have to do no monitoring of the architecture. The time and expense of maintenance are taken care of by the platform itself. Those are the things that we like most about it.  

There are certain limitations to some services in Lambda which will have to be overcome over time. Primarily, I think there are two aspects of the product that are in most need of improvement.  

One is, of course, the customization. The process of customizing should be simplified.  

The other is specifically in the area of integration. The configuration requirements for the services which would be desirable to integrate with Lambda are not always as easy to utilize as they should be. For example, the opportunities we have to integrate solutions with the world outside of the cloud are not well supported. These integrations are supported well inside the cloud but some clients need to support solutions outside the cloud. If somebody has that need we should be able to deploy integrations with products and services outside the cloud as well. 

So those are the two drawbacks and potential areas for improvement area which I would like to see corrected in AWS. Those features need to be updated because the current functionality of the product is not competitive enough today with other products in the category. I think with time they have to improve and add new features or offer other ways of integrating new services.  

I have been working for more than a year now on Lambda AWS (Amazon Web Services) solutions, designing the real-time applications, services, and similar types of solutions for automated response.  

Stability-wise, Lambda needs some improvement because it has constraints that cause issues with task completion. What I mean by constraints is that there are some limitations to the number of minutes that a process can run and then execute. If the process continues to run and goes beyond that limit, it will time out. Those kinds of things are built into the nature of the product. Probably with time I think this is an area where the company will need to add new features or functionality to improve the behavior.  

Lambda definitely is scalable and to a great extent because it does not require any kind of additional infrastructure for the clients. It just is just a lot less trouble to deploy. You can extend and auto-scale to any level. So, the scalability is very good.  

Our clients are large-sized enterprise businesses so certainly the product can scale up to meet their needs.  

The support from AWS is fine. I am quite definitely satisfied with their support system.  

I would say the setup is straightforward. I think that most of the development is really straightforward in nature. The solutions have to develop based on some use-cases defined by the client organization. When these are defined, we are just meeting the needs of the organization by building the solution to do what they need. So the setup and implementation are all pretty straightforward.  

I would definitely recommend AWS Lambda. There are a lot of successful test cases both with our clients and other startups which are doing really well using Lambda as a solution.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I would rate AWS Lambda as an eight-out-of-ten. That would be the right number at this time considering the product is lacking in some areas.  

We have only used it for a few services. It's still in POC mode. We haven't done any production on it currently. 

The most valuable feature is that it scans the cloud system and if they are any security anomalies it triggers an email. 

The running time of AWS Lambda runs fine. It takes around five minutes but it would be great if that time could be extended. 

I have been using Lambda for two to three years. 

We haven't seen any issues regarding stability as of now.

It is easy to expand the platform.

Their technical support is quite good. We have enterprise support, so it is quite good.

The initial setup is easy. 

I did the deployment with the help of consultants. 

I would recommend Lambda to someone considering it. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

The pricing is similar to Azure services, they are quite competitive pricing-wise if you compare Azure and AWS.

We use this solution for a mobile banking application with the ability to scale as per demand and to focus on core business functions rather than the platform.

This solution has improved our ability to scale as per demand and to focus on core business functions rather than the platform.

The most valuable feature of this solution is the API Gateway.

The security needs to be improved.

Our primary use case for Lambda is for serverless computing in our project. We have an environment in AWS with Lambda, EC2, S3, SQS, RDS, and Redshift. Our Lambda function is triggered whenever a new object is put into S3. It will validate, extract data from S3 then input metadata into MySQL and put the main data into Redshift as the data warehouse. An SQS message will be created so our Application in EC2 is alerted that there is new data to have processed.

With AWS Lambda, we found it easy to integrate with other AWS services such as S3, SQS, RDS, etc. This allows us to scale our services in an almost unlimited fashion, as data input into S3 sometimes peak up to a thousand objects and need to be processed as soon as possible.

This solution is easy to integrate with other AWS services, making our job easier and more effective. Lambda is lightweight and we can quickly develop our functions. The ability to scale up and down very quickly helps because we can maintain our system performance and business at a low cost.

There are several things that can be improved, including:

• It has limited access to disk space, as it does not have full access to underline VM
• Lamba functions have cold-starts that can cause some delay
• It is hard to troubleshoot and monitor Lambda functions

Our Lambda functions are very stable, despite the fact that we have scaled up and down frequently. This means our functions run in the different underlying hosts, but their behavior is still the same.

This solution can scale up to thousands of instances in a very short time without any delay. It is very fast.

We have just started with Lambda and it is great.

Setting up AWS Lambda is simple and AWS provides great documentation that includes installation details, as well as guidelines and best practices. The coding of Lambda functions is simple and straightforward with our developer.

We implemented using our in-house team.

With Lambda, we can reduce the time to deliver our project to production and can provide our clients with a scalable, reliable, and high-performance system.

We considered deploying our functions in EC2 with Auto Scaling but decided on Lambda as we need a lightweight function that is able to scale up and down quickly. Also, the overall cost is much lower.

Implementing this solution is easy, with just a few clicks your function will be ready. I suggest reviewing your requirements and choosing a suitable Lamba function size. Also, have a good strategy on how to trigger your functions.