I feel like that is always the crux of these solutions.
For example, I used Aurora Serverless v2 in a deployment, and eventually it just made sense to use a reserved instance because the fee structure doesn't make sense.
If I actually scale my app on these infrastructuers, I pay way more. I feel it's only great for products that _arent_ successful.
I always thought serverless meant you could scale out AND lower the cost. It always seems to turn out that serverless is more expensive the more you use it. I guess at certain volume, a serverless instance is meaningless since it’s always on anyway.
> I guess at certain volume, a serverless instance is meaningless since it’s always on anyway.
Bingo. The pricing alignment makes sense:
You share the risk of idle, but provided capacity with the provider: no fixed capacity for no fixed pricing.
The capex for the provider are fixed, though.
That's why I think more competition in the serverless Postgres space is fantastic: Sure, it's not a pure price competition, providers try to bundle with slightly different customer groups they focus on.
But underneath it, technology is being built which will make offering serverless ever more cost effective.
We might see a day where serverless (i.e. unbundeled storage and computed) with dedicated compute is cheaper than standalone GCP/ AWS/ Azure Postgres.
For example, I used Aurora Serverless v2 in a deployment, and eventually it just made sense to use a reserved instance because the fee structure doesn't make sense.
If I actually scale my app on these infrastructuers, I pay way more. I feel it's only great for products that _arent_ successful.