Serverless vs Containers
Serverless (functions) is ideal for event-driven, spiky or low-volume workloads — no infrastructure and scale-to-zero. Containers (and Kubernetes) win for long-running services, steady heavy load, and full control over the runtime. Most real systems mix both.
| Criterion | Serverless | Containers |
|---|---|---|
| Ops overhead | Minimal | You manage the runtime |
| Scale to zero | Yes | No (always-on) |
| Long-running processes | Limited (timeouts) | Strong |
| Cost at steady high load | Can be high | More efficient |
| Cold starts | Possible latency | None |
| Runtime control | Constrained | Full |
| Spiky / event workloads | Ideal | Wasteful when idle |
Choose Serverless when
Event-driven tasks, APIs with variable traffic, glue code, and workloads that idle — pay only when they run.
Choose Containers when
Long-running services, steady heavy load, latency-sensitive apps, and workloads needing full runtime control.
The verdict
Use serverless for spiky and event-driven work, containers for steady long-running services — most systems are a blend. Lazlo maps each workload to the model that fits its traffic and cost profile.