What would the point of self-hosted FaaS be?
They lose their whole value proposition when you're paying for dedicated servers or when you don't have large numbers of servers.
They lose their whole value proposition when you're paying for dedicated servers or when you don't have large numbers of servers.
If you have a big enough SRE team to manage your serverless stack, economy of scale means that development teams utilising these can reduce their infra management costs. It is about the ratio of engineers utilising the stack compared to those that need to maintain it.
No, you would have a boatload of generic worker VMs that could all be spun up as needed (autoscaled) from a common base image and deleted without any need to preserve state. Effectively, you're managing one VM image, which can be rolled out across your entire fleet very quickly and with zero downtime / disruption. This is even less disruption than with k8s because FAAS design is fundamentally short-lived processes, resulting in more automation (less work) for your SRE / VM team.
This is only true of very large companies, so it doesn't change anything about this thread, which was saying that FaaS only makes sense if you're a public cloud or a large company with many on-prem servers.
Think more about the name: Function as a Service.
Why do you need to serve yourself your own functions? It makes sense only in the context of a cloud provider that's trying to solve the problem of underutilized resources used across many customers.