AWS Lambda Reviews

We're using AWS Lambda to trigger jobs and receive SQS messages. We're also using the tool as a single unit where you have computing, storage, and network.

AWS Lambda has improved my company through its usage in a distributed system, particularly event-driven architecture. When an event is passed to AWS Lambda from Amazon SQS asynchronously, the tool can call an ETL job, and it can trigger that job, and that job can trigger an AWS Lambda function, which can then send a message to the queue to complete the entire use case.

The most valuable feature of AWS Lambda is that you can trigger and run jobs instantly, and after you complete the job, that function is either destroyed or stopped.

The feature to attach external storage, such as an S3 or elastic storage, must be added to AWS Lambda. This is its area for improvement.

I've been using AWS Lambda for two years.

Stability-wise, AWS Lambda is an eight out of ten.

Scalability-wise, AWS Lambda is an eight out of ten.

I have not encountered any problems with AWS Lambda, so I didn't need to contact its technical support team.

We didn't use a different solution apart from AWS Lambda.

The initial setup for AWS Lambda was straightforward.

I saw ROI from AWS Lambda.

Price-wise, AWS Lambda is a five out of ten.

One person is enough for maintenance for a cloud-based tool, such as AWS Lambda.

I cannot share the number of AWS Lambda direct users in my company, as that figure is confidential.

My advice to others looking into implementing the tool is that it's easy to use as long as you know the basics.

AWS Lambda has good features, so I'm giving it an eight out of ten.

Our primary use case for the solution is automation. There was a scenario where we tried to reduce cost in our environment using Instance Scheduler, where the AWS Lambda function was also used during that process. So we use it for automation and tagging.

The solution has helped our organization with cost optimization. So we have used AWS Lambda for consolidated billing.

The automation feature is valuable.

The runtime for the solution can be improved.

We have been using the solution for approximately two years.

The solution is stable. I rate it a nine out of ten.

The solution is scalable, and I rate it a ten out of ten.

The initial setup was straightforward.

The solution is very expensive.

I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

AWS Lambda is good because if you chop up your application into small pieces and that is something that can be accomplished as a Lambda-based solution on the cloud, you will save on the cost of your applications.

The reason Amazon AWS has provided AWS Lambda is to allow people to write small pieces of application tasks that will run on Amazon's own internal servers.

The most valuable feature of AWS Lambda, from a conceptual point, is its functions. For example, it's mathematical templates into which you can write, and create your solution. You write small pieces of a solution under given parameters.

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

Scalability is an in-house feature of AWS Lambda, it can scale well.

My team in the company is using this solution. I do not know how many other teams in the company might be using it.

We plan to use the solution in the future because there is always a use case for it.

I rate the scalability of AWS Lambda a ten out of ten.

I rate the support from AWS Lambda a ten out of ten.

Positive

We did not use another solution prior to AWS Lambda.

The initial setup of AWS Lambda is easy, it can be done with a couple of clicks.

We use Amazon's CodeBuild, which does the deployment for us, and we use CodeDeploy to write our software application, which submits the code into our Git DevOps operation. From there it gets built and deployed automatically. It's similar to a CICD operation.

We have seen a return on investment using AWS Lambda. We don't have to pay for the solution, such as whatever logic that is implemented. If we had to build it ourselves as a microservice, we would be paying for the infrastructure.

There are other similar solutions, such as Google Cloud Platform or Microsoft Azure. They might be better for small tasks. Everyone can use the cloud providers' solution rather than building their own infrastructure. Any cloud provider has benefits.

I would advise others to try the solution.

I rate AWS Lambda a nine out of ten.

My primary use cases for AWS Lambda is collecting data from other systems through API, pre-calculations, and ETL.

The feature I found most valuable about Lambda is the fact that it's serverless.

I would like the layers to have a bigger volume. I would like to be able to add more. I don't want to be limited by the layer. 

In addition, writing temporary data to Lambda is not straightforward. Sometimes I use the S3 for that. I found it a little bit challenging. 

I have been using AWS Lambda for a couple of years.

My impression is that it is a stable solution.

I would rate the scalability of this solution a 10, on a scale of one to 10, with one being not scalable and 10 being very scalable.

I have never used Amazon's tech support.

I would say the initial setup was straightforward.

We required two technical staff to do the deployment and maintenance.

We have about 15 to 20 users of Lambda in our company and plan to expand.

We have some services deployed that we need to consume in Lambda because it's a faster and better implementation. We have a model that microservice in the product, which we implement in AWS. For that reason, we use Lambda.

The solution has improved our organization by providing us with better communication with the different services, dependencies, and implementations our clients require. The solution is faster and the consumption is really good.

There are some restrictions. For example, we have some services that if you have more than 60 seconds in consumption of this service, we don't use it, because they have that restriction with the gateway. Those services we implement with Fargate and with Docker.

The most valuable feature is that there is no need to implement it in a server because it is a service.

The 60 seconds limitation with the consumption of the service is really restrictive for a service and the solution can be improved by eliminating that.

I have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable.

The initial setup is easy but you do need some experience.

The implementation was completed in-house.

The return on investment is good because it is a Cloud-based solution that doesn't require maintenance or a server on-premises saving you money.

I give the solution a seven out of ten.

One person with AWS knowledge is sufficient for deploying and maintaining the solution.

We currently have around 160 people using the solution.

All of the products we implement are in AWS so we do have plans to increase the usage of Lambda, Fargate, and all of the services in AWS to help speed up the implementations.

For anyone thinking about using the solution, you must make sure you have some experience in AWS or another cloud, maybe Azure, and have some experience with software development. If you don't have software development skills, maybe you have experience in deploying services on IIS or something like that.

My prior company used the solution to perform event-based actions and notifications, process data in an S3 bucket, and send messages in the SQS queue. 

Our development team worked with 300 users across different departments to integrate the solution. 

The serverless format is a benefit because on-demand computing can be performed without having to run machines.

The solution integrates well with API gateways and S3 events via its AWS ecosystem. 

The solution works with various programming languages including .NET and Java. 

The solution should continue to streamline integrations with AWS services. 

At one point, there was an issue receiving support for a new version. Support was behind by two versions and this presented challenges, but they caught up over time. 

I have been using the solution for three years. 

The solution is very stable. 

The solution is scalable for users because it is serverless. You can provision IAM users and easily give them access.

We scaled a core from one million to ten millions runs with no issues.  

I never needed to contact support. 

The setup is very easy and onboarding happens quickly. 

We implemented the solution in-house.

Implementation includes determining which APS you need, writing code, and packaging it all for upload. There is no real deployment other than adding the package to your CI/CD pipeline and pushing it. We do not consider this work to be substantial. 

The operational push takes a matter of minutes. 

The ROI is definitely worthwhile because pricing is based on use. 

The pricing is on-demand and based on runs or times that are billed out monthly. 

For example, one million requests might cost 20 cents. 

Our company wanted to compute in an ad-hoc manner. The solution allowed us to schedule cron jobs which made things easier. 

The solution also integrates well with the AWS suite of products so can be used with an API gateway and S3 functions. 

The solution can be used for many scenarios encountered by IT developers. There is a general push to create serverless systems that have on-demand use and price models. For most use cases, there is a 50% chance the solution will be a good fit.  

I rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

We use AWS Lambda extensively for our maintenance work, for our products, and in our daily actions. We try to move some data based on alerts in certain situations and events. For example, if we are using queues based on the queue methods, we prefer to trigger different Lambdas for different functions (to enable some functionality across products). There are also a few Lambdas for audits. There are a few Lambdas for backups and many other use cases. 

I like that it's easy to use and maintain. Lambda is good and supports different platforms, so you don't need to worry about language or maintenance.

The execution time could be better. One of the major limitations is the time period because it doesn't give you more than seven minutes. So, before thinking about Lambda, you should think through your use case and ensure it's a good fit. Otherwise, you can use batch, step functions, or other methods. 

Reports and the monitoring board could also be improved in terms of alerts. The threshold alerts are there but can be improved. It takes some time to get used to these methods and get the hang of them. 

I have been using AWS Lambda for about five years.

AWS Lambda is pretty stable.

AWS Lambda is scalable. There are some concurrency issues where threshold values play a role. We might end up making a request to increase those threshold values or the limit quota, but otherwise, it's pretty decent.

AWS Lambda tech support is pretty decent. 

On a scale from one to five, I would give AWS Lambda tech support a four.

Positive

The initial setup is more about usage. Implementing this solution takes about 15 minutes, but the code and debugging will take some time. Two or three people can manage and maintain this solution.

On a scale from one to five, I would give the initial setup a five.

AWS Lambda cost is pretty decent. 

I recommend this solution to new users as this tool simplifies mundane tasks and achieves a few things between the two systems.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give AWS Lambda an eight.

We primarily use the solution for integration purposes. We use it very closely with Jira, for example. 

The workflow is the best thing about the product. When the integration happened and from where to where is something we can see automatically and navigate the workflow. 

From Jira to AWS Lambda, we're sending data. When we go from Jira to AWS, through webhooks, we are sending data to the Lambda function. From Lambda, they're navigating Jira. Whenever the manual rework is done, they need to perform some job bundles from the AWS to the Jira only. They can operate from Jira to AWS and AWS to Jira, which is great.

The initial setup is pretty easy. 

I don't have much experience after six months. I can't speak to the pros and cons. 

I have seen some drawbacks with certain integrations. 

I started using the solution six months ago. 

I'm not aware of any issues with stability. It's been issue-free so far. 

The solution can scale. We can add more users to it. We have ten to 15 people on the product right now. They are developers. 

I've never needed to reach out to technical support. I haven't had any issues. I can't, therefore, speak to how helpful or responsive they are. 

We found the setup to be straightforward. It's not complicated at all. 

It took me one day to get everything up and running.

I'm not aware of the exact pricing. I don't handle any licensing. 

Our company is looking into ServiceNow to see how it handles integrations. 

We are a customer and end-user. We use the cloud for integration purposes. 

I'm not completely into AWS Lambda just yet. What I can say, integration-wise, Lambda does not require any username or password from the Jira once they start talking to each other. It's integrated very well. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It is a very new tool for me; I need to do some more research on it to really understand it fully.