[OJFord]

> Fargate is a little expensive for what we are running

Because of low usage? Lambda supports containers now (as of 2021 I think) so if you have a container to run (or something you could containerise) it's a relatively straightforward usage question which of Lambda/Fargate/EC2 makes sense on price. Lambda doesn't have to complicate comparison by being a completely different architecture/setup any more.

[shitlord]

No, the cost of a Fargate vCPU is just higher compared to EC2. An EC2 t3.small instance costs about 2 cents/hour and a similar configuration on Fargate costs about 9 cents/hour. For m6i.large and c6i.large instances, the disparity isn't as bad but it's still 15%-20% more expensive.

There are a few different reasons we're using Fargate. Like the other commenter mentioned, there's the lambda max run time. Our Fargate tasks also have a few sidecar containers running alongside the main services. The ECS Exec integration is also nice for poking around when things aren't working correctly.

[OJFord]

Of course it is, if it were cheaper then it would always win over EC2 for container workloads.

This is why I said it's a matter of usage - it's worth paying more per unit time if it's running less and more sporadically making it cheaper over all.

[shitlord]

I don't disagree about usage, but a 300% upcharge over a burstable EC2 instance is not reasonable from a pricing perspective.

Fargate should allow users to specify their compute requirements beyond just vCPU count and GB memory.

[arinlen]

> Lambda supports containers now (...)

The usecases for Fargate vs Lambda are not the same. For instance, Fargate is mainly intended for servers/long-running applications, whereas Lambdas have a hard runtime cap of 15min.

[OJFord]

Why is that incompatible with it being a matter of usage, as I said?

Lambda makes sense when usage is a small fraction of the day; 'long-running applications' are not that.