How do these perform for cold-starts? I remember one of the disadvantages of using web assembly for Workers was more spin-up time, but maybe they figured out a way around that.
We’ve got some cold start numbers in our previous blog post: <a href="https://blog.cloudflare.com/python-workers-advancements/" rel="nofollow">https://blog.cloudflare.com/python-workers-advancements/.
There is still more to do here and it’s what we will be focusing on next.
The cold start numbers on that blog post show that its faster than AWS Lambda but your linked benchmark page [1] shows that Lambda is not only much faster but also much more consistent.
It looks like that link is incorrect, it should be pointing at <a href="https://cold.picheta.me/#packages" rel="nofollow">https://cold.picheta.me/#packages.
In many cases, the cold-start time might not be visible to users. E.g. if you serve your static content from a CDN, maybe you have stale content in local storage you can show while fetching updated data. If it all happens on a sub-100ms timescale, it should feel quite instant?
My experience with Rust Wasm workers was that they eventually had shorter cold-start and runtime than JavaScript ones because your wasm is significantly more optimized than a JavaScript one that loads whatever packages/dependencies into its memory.
stefan_lec · · focus · HN ↗
dom96 · · focus · HN ↗
There is still more to do here and it’s what we will be focusing on next.
hbcondo714 · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48642510">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48642510
[2] <a href="https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557825">https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=46557825
aeyes · · focus · HN ↗
[1] <a href="https://cold.picheta.me/#bare" rel="nofollow">https://cold.picheta.me/#bare
dom96 · · focus · HN ↗
amenghra · · focus · HN ↗
csomar · · focus · HN ↗