Serverless vs VMs: When FaaS Truly Saves Money

Serverless computing, particularly Function-as-a-Service (FaaS), is a game-changer. It’s reshaping how we build and deploy applications. Many businesses are curious about its cost benefits. Specifically, they want to know when FaaS genuinely saves money compared to traditional virtual machines (VMs).

This article dives deep into this question. We will analyze the core differences. We will also explore the scenarios where FaaS shines. Furthermore, we will highlight why FaaS is a smart choice for certain workloads.

Understanding Serverless and FaaS

Before comparing costs, let’s clarify what serverless and FaaS are. Serverless computing is a broad cloud model. It abstracts away server management. Users don’t provision or manage infrastructure. This includes servers, operating systems, and web server software. The cloud provider handles all of this automatically.

Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) is a key part of serverless. It allows you to run code in response to events. You write small, single-purpose functions. These functions execute only when triggered. Examples of FaaS providers include AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, and Google Cloud Functions.

On the other hand, virtual machines (VMs) are different. They are essentially emulated computers. You rent a VM and manage its operating system and software. You pay for the VM’s resources whether they are in use or not. This can lead to significant idle capacity costs.

The Core Cost Advantage of FaaS

The primary cost benefit of FaaS lies in its pay-per-execution model. With FaaS, you only pay for the actual compute time your code uses. This is typically measured in milliseconds. There are no charges for idle servers or unused capacity. In contrast, VMs incur costs based on allocated resources, regardless of usage.

This granular billing makes FaaS exceptionally cost-effective for specific workloads. Think about applications with unpredictable traffic. Or consider scheduled tasks that run infrequently. For these, FaaS eliminates the expense of maintaining always-on infrastructure.

The market for FaaS is growing rapidly. It is forecast to reach $31.53 billion by 2026 according to industry projections. This growth underscores its perceived value and efficiency.

When FaaS Outperforms VMs on Cost

Several factors determine when FaaS offers superior cost benefits over VMs. Understanding these scenarios is crucial for making informed architectural decisions.

1. Event-Driven and Sporadic Workloads

FaaS excels in environments where tasks are triggered by specific events. This could be a file upload, a database change, or an API request. When an event occurs, a FaaS function runs. Once it completes, it stops. No code runs, and no costs are incurred until the next event.

Consider a photo-processing application. Users upload images. Each upload triggers a function to resize or tag the image. VMs would sit idle between uploads, still costing money. FaaS, however, only charges for the milliseconds spent processing each image. This is a clear cost saving.

This model is ideal for companies with dynamic workloads. It is also perfect for scheduled tasks. High-load scenarios can also benefit. However, the true magic happens when usage is not constant.

2. Microservices Architecture

FaaS naturally aligns with microservices. Instead of a large monolithic application on a VM, you break it down into small, independent functions. Each function can scale independently. This means you only scale the specific parts of your application that are experiencing high demand.

This granular scaling is a significant cost advantage. With VMs, you might need to scale up an entire server. This can be inefficient if only one component of the application is under heavy load. FaaS allows you to scale out only the necessary functions. This avoids over-provisioning resources and reduces costs.

Developers can focus on coding. They don’t need to manage the underlying infrastructure. This reduces time to market. This is especially beneficial for startups.

3. Variable and Unpredictable Traffic

Applications that experience highly variable or unpredictable traffic patterns are prime candidates for FaaS. Think of marketing campaign websites. Traffic can spike dramatically during a promotion. Then, it can drop to almost zero afterward.

VMs would need to be provisioned for peak load. This means paying for significant excess capacity during off-peak times. FaaS, by contrast, scales instantly. It handles the spikes efficiently. It then scales down immediately when demand subsides. This results in substantial cost savings because you’re not paying for idle resources.

Other cloud models might offer auto-scaling. However, FaaS scaling is often faster and more instantaneous. It scales independently for each action. Other models require careful tuning of auto-scaling rules. These can be slower to react.

4. Low-Traffic Applications

Even applications with consistently low traffic can benefit from FaaS. The minimum cost for a VM is typically a monthly charge for the instance. For an application that receives only a few requests per day, this can be very expensive per request.

FaaS, with its per-millisecond billing, can be significantly cheaper. If an application receives very few requests, the total cost for FaaS will be minimal. It might even be zero if there are no requests within a billing cycle. This makes it an attractive option for niche tools or internal utilities.

5. Reduced Operational Overhead

VMs require ongoing maintenance. This includes OS patching, security updates, and server monitoring. This administrative overhead translates into significant labor costs.

With FaaS, the cloud provider handles all infrastructure maintenance. There is no capacity planning required. No workflow maintenance is needed. This frees up developer and operations teams. They can focus on building features and improving the application. This reduction in operational overhead is a substantial, often overlooked, cost benefit.

This lack of ongoing administration distinguishes FaaS from other models like PaaS, containers, or VMs. The ease of use is a significant advantage.

When VMs Might Still Be More Cost-Effective

While FaaS offers compelling cost benefits, it’s not always the cheapest option. Certain scenarios still favor VMs. Understanding these limitations is equally important.

1. Constant, High-Utilization Workloads

If an application runs at a constant, high utilization rate 24/7, VMs can sometimes be more cost-effective. In such cases, you are paying for the VM resources most of the time anyway. The predictable nature of the workload means you can optimize VM instance types for efficiency.

For example, a large database server that is consistently busy might be cheaper to run on a well-provisioned VM than incurring continuous function invocations and execution times. The cost per hour for a VM can be lower than the cumulative cost of many small FaaS executions that achieve the same throughput.

2. Long-Running Processes

FaaS functions typically have execution time limits. These limits are designed to encourage short, event-driven tasks. If your application involves very long-running processes, such as complex simulations or batch jobs that take hours, VMs are usually a better fit. FaaS execution limits can be a hard stop, forcing complex workarounds.

Running these long processes on VMs is more straightforward. You pay for the VM for the duration of the job. This is often more predictable and manageable than trying to break down a multi-hour task into many short FaaS invocations.

3. Predictable, Steady-State Applications

For applications with very stable and predictable resource needs, a reserved VM instance can offer significant discounts. If you know precisely how much CPU, memory, and storage you need for the foreseeable future, you can commit to a long-term VM contract. This can be cheaper than paying the per-execution rate of FaaS.

This is similar to buying in bulk. If you have a steady demand, a bulk purchase (reserved instance) is usually cheaper per unit than buying small quantities as needed (FaaS). Cloud provider pricing pages often detail these reserved instance discounts.

4. State Management and Complex Dependencies

FaaS functions are designed to be stateless. Managing complex application state across multiple function invocations can be challenging and costly. You often need to rely on external services like databases or caching layers, which adds complexity and cost.

VMs, on the other hand, can easily maintain state within the server’s memory or local storage. This can simplify the development and operation of applications with intricate state management requirements. This ease of state management can indirectly lead to lower development and maintenance costs.

Analyzing FaaS Costs: Key Metrics

When evaluating FaaS costs, several metrics are critical:

• Invocation Count: The number of times your function is triggered.
• Execution Duration: The time your function spends running, measured in milliseconds.
• Memory Allocation: The amount of memory assigned to your function. More memory often means faster execution but higher cost.
• Data Transfer: Costs associated with data moving in and out of the FaaS environment.

Cloud providers typically offer generous free tiers for FaaS. This allows you to experiment and deploy small applications without initial cost. However, as usage scales, understanding these metrics becomes vital for cost optimization.

It’s also important to consider the total cost of ownership. This includes not just direct compute costs but also development time, maintenance, and operational expenses. FaaS can significantly reduce these indirect costs.

Cost Governance and Optimization

Regardless of whether you choose FaaS or VMs, cost governance is essential. Implementing strategies to monitor and control cloud spending is crucial for long-term savings. For FaaS, this might involve optimizing function code for faster execution or reducing unnecessary invocations.

For VMs, it means right-sizing instances, utilizing reserved instances, and shutting down unused resources. Many organizations find success by implementing a robust cloud cost governance strategy. This can help slash their AWS/Azure bills.

Understanding the nuances of FaaS pricing is key. For instance, the billing is often in blocks of 100 milliseconds. This means a function running for 50 milliseconds is billed the same as one running for 100 milliseconds. Optimizing code to finish within these blocks can save money.

Case Studies: FaaS Cost Wins

Real-world examples highlight FaaS cost benefits. Many companies use FaaS for APIs that experience unpredictable traffic. For instance, a mobile app backend that sees user activity spikes during certain hours can benefit greatly.

Consider a company that uses FaaS for image thumbnail generation. Instead of running a dedicated server, they use FaaS. Each image upload triggers a function. This saves them money because the processing only happens when needed. The cost of processing millions of images can be significantly lower than maintaining a VM for this task.

Another common use case is data processing pipelines. Tasks like log analysis or data transformation can be broken down into FaaS functions. These functions can be triggered by new data arriving. This event-driven approach ensures resources are used only when data is present.

Conclusion: When to Choose FaaS for Savings

Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) offers significant cost benefits over virtual machines (VMs) in specific scenarios. The primary advantage is its pay-per-execution model. You only pay for what you use, down to the millisecond. This eliminates the cost of idle capacity.

FaaS is particularly cost-effective for:

• Event-driven and sporadic workloads
• Applications with variable or unpredictable traffic
• Microservices architectures requiring granular scaling
• Low-traffic applications where VM minimums are too high
• Scenarios where reducing operational overhead is a priority

However, for applications with constant, high utilization, long-running processes, or complex state management, VMs might still be the more economical choice. A careful analysis of workload characteristics and usage patterns is essential.

Ultimately, serverless computing, through FaaS, represents a powerful shift in cloud economics. It allows businesses to achieve greater efficiency and cost savings by aligning compute resources precisely with demand. By understanding these nuances, you can make strategic decisions to optimize your cloud spend.

If you’re looking to optimize your IT assets’ lifecycle costs, exploring serverless options can be a key strategy. You might also find value in learning about the true cost of on-premise IT versus cloud solutions to make a comprehensive comparison.

Frequently Asked Questions