Serverless vs Serverful: Smarter Azure Choices

As more organisations transition their operations to the cloud, grasping the true costs associated with running applications is essential. A prevalent discussion within this context revolves around the choice between serverless and serverful (traditional Server-based) architectures. If you’re operating within Azure, this often involves deciding between services such as Azure Functions (typically used in serverless models) and Azure App Service, Virtual Machines, or Kubernetes (serverful).

But is serverless always the more economical option? Let’s delve into the details.

Optimising Serverless Expenses – Begin with Turbo360

Grasping Serverless (Azure Functions) versus Serverful (VMs, App Service, AKS)

Azure Functions is a compute service designed to execute small code snippets without the burden of managing infrastructure. You are charged solely for the execution time and resources utilised during that period. It is particularly suited for event-driven tasks, such as processing data from storage blobs, responding to webhooks, or executing background tasks.

The most commonly adopted model for Azure Functions is the consumption plan, which automatically scales and bills you only for what you use—ideal for sporadic or unpredictable workloads. However, Azure Functions can also operate under Premium Plans or even App Service Plans, where dedicated resources are provisioned. This setup causes them to behave more like serverful services, offering pre-warmed instances and fixed pricing structures.

In contrast, serverful models necessitate the provisioning and management of compute resources. Whether utilising VMs, App Services, or Kubernetes clusters on Azure, you generally pay for uptime, regardless of actual usage. While this approach can provide more control and consistent performance, it also carries the risk of over-provisioning and increased operational costs.

Azure Container Apps: The Compromise

In assessing the options between serverless and serverful architectures, there often emerges a need for a hybrid solution—one that offers the scalability of serverless while providing the control associated with serverful. This is precisely where Azure Container Apps (ACA) becomes relevant. ACA is engineered to run microservices and containerised applications without the necessity of managing the underlying Kubernetes infrastructure.

A standout aspect of Azure Container Apps is its support for scale-to-zero and event-driven scaling, much like Azure Functions. This makes it a cost-effective solution for bursty workloads or background jobs. However, unlike Functions, ACA provides complete control over your container images, startup processes, and runtime environments, rendering it suitable for more intricate application designs.

In addition, ACA allows optional integration with Dapr (Distributed Application Runtime) for purposes such as service discovery, pub/sub messaging, and observability. This functionality empowers developers to create portable, cloud-native applications without the need for extensive plumbing code.

Furthermore, ACA accommodates HTTP-based autoscaling, CPU/memory-based scaling, and KEDA (Kubernetes Event-driven Autoscaler) for responding to custom events from various sources like queues and databases. You can enjoy the advantages of dynamic scaling without the added complexity of managing AKS clusters.

Overall, Azure Container Apps present a balanced architectural solution that offers greater control than Functions while remaining easier to manage and more cost-effective than an extensive Kubernetes setup. This is particularly beneficial when you seek increased flexibility, custom scaling behaviours, or freedom regarding programming languages/runtime without compromising cloud-native efficiency.

When is Serverless Economically Viable?

Serverless options shine when dealing with unpredictable workloads or low-traffic applications. Since you’re billed solely for actual usage, this model helps avoid unnecessary expenses. Startups, microservices, and event-driven tasks particularly benefit from this approach. There are no costs incurred when your function is inactive, and scaling down to zero is possible.

For instance, a function that executes every few minutes and runs swiftly might only cost a few pounds monthly. There’s no requirement to maintain a VM around the clock for the same task.

When is Serverful the Better Choice?

On the other hand, serverful alternatives are often more suitable for high-throughput applications or workloads characterised by consistent traffic. If your application operates continuously, the pay-per-execution model of Azure Functions can escalate costs rapidly. In such cases, opting for reserved instances or savings plans for VMs can substantially reduce expenses.

This approach also guarantees more predictable performance, improved control over cold starts, and the capability to execute heavier workloads without the constraints of time limits.

Performance and Scalability Considerations

Performance plays a significant role in the decision-making process between serverless and serverful architectures. Azure Functions scale automatically based on incoming requests, making them well-suited for handling burst traffic. However, rapid scaling or accommodating many concurrent executions may lead to throttling or delays.

Conversely, serverful configurations like App Services or Kubernetes allow for more intentional control over resource allocation. They are better suited for applications requiring consistent response times, such as real-time APIs or transactional systems.

Cold Start Challenges and Solutions

A notable drawback of serverless solutions is the cold start phenomenon. When a function has not been utilised for an extended period, it may take additional seconds to initiate, adversely affecting performance. This can be particularly frustrating in high-latency sensitive applications.

Fortunately, there are strategies to mitigate this issue. Opting for an Azure Functions Premium Plan or Elastic Premium can help keep instances warm. Additionally, selecting fast-starting languages, such as Node.js or Python, can improve response times. Some teams implement “ping” invocations to maintain warmth in functions; however, this approach can introduce minor additional expenses.

By understanding your workload’s characteristics and employing these strategies, you can considerably lessen or eliminate the cold-start challenge.

Unforeseen Costs in Serverless

Although serverless might appear cheaper at first glance, it’s important to recognise potential hidden costs. Cold starts can cause latency, and debugging distributed functions can be more complex. Integrations and monitoring may necessitate additional tools, which can heighten complexity and costs, particularly in large-scale environments.

Cost Comparison Scenarios

Let’s examine a hypothetical workload that surpasses the 1 million executions per month free tier:

• Serverless (Azure Functions): The estimated cost could be around £20–30.
• Serverful (B1 App Service or small VM): This could amount to approximately £60–80 per month, irrespective of low usage.

However, if the function runs consistently, the serverless option could exceed £100 per month, making a VM or App Service more financially viable.

Which Option is Right for You?

There isn’t a definitive answer to this question; it relies on your workload patterns, performance requirements, and budget constraints. A hybrid approach is also feasible, employing Azure Functions for certain tasks while utilising App Services for others.

To make educated decisions and minimise waste, gaining insights into your usage patterns and cost factors is vital. This is where Turbo360’s Cost Analyzer proves invaluable.

The Turbo360 Cost Analyzer aids teams in:

• Simulating costs across serverless and serverful models based on genuine usage patterns.
• Identifying underutilised resources, such as over-provisioned App Service Plans or inactive Kubernetes nodes, contributing to your Azure bill.
• Monitoring cost spikes and trends over time across subscriptions, environments, and resource groups, allowing you to identify anomalies before they escalate into significant overruns.
• Setting custom budgets and alerts to ensure unexpected spending increases remain on your radar.
• Mapping costs at the application level, rather than restricting analysis to infrastructure data.

Achieving this level of insight is often challenging using native tools alone, leading to better architectural decisions that minimise both immediate and future cloud expenses.

Conclusion

Serverless solutions are excellent for agility and cost savings in unpredictable or fluctuating workloads. Serverful configurations provide stability and cost control for applications with consistent, high usage. By understanding both architectures, you can make informed choices that correspond with your cloud budget and performance necessities.

Tools such as Turbo360’s Cost Analyzer simplify this decision-making process by delivering transparency and forecasting capabilities to your Azure expenditure strategy. Whether you’re beginning your cloud journey or refining an established workload, the right analytical tool can unveil hidden savings and enhance your cloud efficiency.