AWS Lambda Reviews

The product is primarily used to deploy code and provision a software solution to your clients when they don't have the time. You don't have to pay for the servers and the uptime.

It is my preferred product, as it provides me with source code within the solution.

It's a great product due to the fact that you don't have to pay for the servers and the uptime.

The solution is very stable.

The product scales well. 

The solution can be free to use.

The product could make the process of integration easier. 

The could be more integration testing. The internal is great with Lambda, however, I have to make sure I have done my tests on a related machine before deploying.

I've been using the solution for three years. I haven't used it for too long just yet.

The solution is very stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It does not crash or freeze. It's reliable.

The solution scales very well. If a company needs to expand it, it can do so.

Its scalability is always based on how much software there is. It's actually virtually building out. The API can scale up automatically. And if the API calls go down, then the system slows in real-time.

All my clients are using the product. All the projects I push to my clients are on Lambda.

I haven't dealt with technical support directly. Therefore, I can't speak to how helpful or responsive they are in general. I don't have experience with them on that personal level. 

There is no setup process to deal with as the entire solution is on the cloud. It's very easy.

If you need to deploy it to a license, the first server you use you need to pay for a license. If you're going to open-source, there are no licenses required.

I'm just a customer and have clients on the solution.

I've had a very good experience with the product. I would rate it at a ten out of ten.

I would recommend the product to all developers.

I think the most valuable feature is the agility of the solution. You can deploy any codes you like and then control how you want them to be handled.

The deployment process is a bit complex, so it could be simplified to make it easier for beginners to deploy. 

I've been using Lambda for two years.

I reckon it's stable. We have not had any bugs with the solution. 

We have not had any problems with the scalability of the solution. We currently have roughly 100 users working with it. 

The tech support is very accommodating. If we have an issue or need to solve something, we speak directly to our Amazon contact person. This isn't really an issue, but their response time could be improved. I would rate the tech support as a four out of five.  

Positive

The price of the solution is reasonable. On a scale of one to five, with one being very expensive and five being competitive, I would rate Lambda a four. 

So far, the solution has been reliable and flexible. Our developers write the code, and we monitor any failures.

I would recommend Lambda to other users and rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use AWS Lambda to automatically manages some compute resources.

It triggers and screens some of my services.

It is easy to use.

I like the way it manages.

I would like to see more integration with other platforms.

I have been using AWS Lambda for a few years.

We are not using the latest version.

AWS Lambda is a stable solution.

You do not have to scale AWS Lambda, it automatically scales for you.

AWS Lambda is used on a daily basis.

We only have a few people who used this solution. I have two teams.

We have a dedicated manager.

My experience with support so far has been good.

It doesn't require any installation at all.

AWS Lambda is inexpensive.

I am very happy with this solution. I would recommend it to others who are interested in it.

I would rate AWS Lambda an eight out of ten.

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.

I back up my MongoDB, that database has user data. The performance of AWS Lambda has been fine.

It has made things a lot easier in terms of restoring if we need to and just not having to worry about the small things.

The console is very good, the user experience works very well.

I would like to see some better integration with other providers, like Cohesity, Druva, and others. I also think the Lambda interface could be better.

I don't have a ton of transactions, so it's very stable from my perspective. But I can imagine that it would not necessarily be as great for an enterprise product.

The scalability is hard for me to see from where I sit because I have a very small company, but I can imagine that it's going to be an issue.

Tech support is very minimalist. It's more do-it-yourself, which works for me, but I don't think it will work forever.

The setup was pretty complex because there were many steps. For me, it was complex because I was somewhat new at it. It could be easier for someone who has done it a bunch of times. I just found that it was a very dense user experience. There's a lot going on during setup.

The vendors on the shortlist now would be Cohesity, Commvault, Druva. But in the past, I went with this because we were using an AWS cluster anyway. It was easy-ish.

My most important criteria when selecting a vendor are

• user experience
• support.
  

I would rate AWS Lambda at a six out of 10 because it's not quite clear that it scales, but it does have a good, easy path from when you're using a cluster.

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.

AWS Lambda is a Code as a Service product. It is used for running code.

This product is easy to use.

The integration with other AWS products is straightforward. For our current usage, the integration that we have is sufficient. Everything is connected to CloudWatch and it's working.

I have been using AWS Lambda for one year.

AWS Lambda is a stable product.

This is a very scalable solution.

At this time, we don't anticipate increasing our usage.

The technical support is great.

The installation is straightforward and it only takes a few minutes to complete.

I deployed it myself.

This is a product that is pay-per-use, as opposed to a licensing fee. It could be cheaper.

There are no costs in addition to the standard pay-per-use fees.

I use other products that are in the AWS ecosystem, including AWS WAF.

In summary, this is a good product, it does what it is supposed to, and I recommend it.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

1. Use lambda function to trigger the jenkins jobs to make whole release pipeline.

2. Send the slack notification once the release with automated test is done.

My automation test story is we moved from CircleCI to Jenkins, then to AWS. The benefit I can see is the maintenance and budget. Ops made this decision but it did not affect automation tests and the release pipeline too much, but I have seen the release pipeline has been developing much faster.

We use AWS Function and Jenkins API to trigger the Jenkins job from the AWS CodePipeline.

Since our automated deploy jobs are on AWS, and automated tests are on Jenkins.

Then we can create the release pipeline including AWS and Jenkins and put them together.

1. Cannot checkout code from GitHub but Jenkins can.

2. No shell script supported.

3. CodePipeline cannot send notification to Slack, but we can use Slack API and Lambda Function.

Pretty good.

I saw Ops setup the automated release jobs faster in AWS than in Jenkins and CircleCI.

For automation tests, it does not affect too much. 

Our Ops are all AWS experts.

For automation developers, we do not care too much about which CI system we use. It does not affect us too much. Automation tests can be ran in most of mainstream CI systems.