[azurelogic]

If you want to self-host FaaS, there's OpenWhisk. The problem that I have seen with the whole concept of self-hosted FaaS though is that you lose some of the key benefits of "serverless": no maintenance of underlying systems and pay for exactly what you use. Self-hosted means you have to maintain the underlying systems and you have to pay to keep those servers running 24/7 with sufficient scale to support your usage model. It may make deployment easier once you adapt to it, but it's not really giving you the full benefit.

[mmt]

> pay for exactly what you use

Is that a pragmatic consideration, though, or just a conceptual one?

My main concern is with the word "exactly", since cloud providers can charge a remarkable markup, which means that, though one is paying proportional to ones use, but that's not necessarily desirable, if the alternative is, for example, to pay less-than-proportionally (e.g. via an economy of scale).

Is the FaaS markup significantly lower? Higher? Do the decision makers even care?

I'm somewhat familiar with the possibility of reducing costs at IaaS providers like AWS with things like dedicated instances and the marketplace. Is that available with FaaS? Does that not matter because it, essentially, removes the benefit of minimal support?

[sytse]

So far everyone I meet that uses it production is using Lambda. It might be because they want to consume it as a SaaS. But maybe a self-managed solution would have to be compatible with Lambda to gain adoption.

Of course self-hosted is more work then SaaS, but I'm not sure that maintenance and scale are much worse. With Kubernetes you can autoscale things easily.

[dangoor]

What would the goal of self-hosting a FaaS solution be?

[sunnyP]

On-premise deployment might be one goal.

[dangoor]

Indeed! That's a good one.