Escape The Lambda 512MB /tmp Storage Limitation
Frustrated with the AWS Lambda 512MB temp storage limitation? Lambda by Amazon Web Services is often touted as one of the most popular serverless solutions, but the frustratingly low 512MB storage limit in the /tmp directory leaves a lot of people looking for a better option. If you find yourself in the situation countless other Lambda users have tried to escape, this guide will help you find a solution like IronWorker so you can get back to work.
You should be working on your application and not dealing with AWS Lambda’s temp storage limitation. Workload efficient enterprises are leaving Lambda for IronWorker. Speak to us to talk about why.
Table of Contents
Can You Increase The 512MB Limitation?
Avid Lambda users know that a quick email to the support team will allow them to up certain account limits. Unfortunately, the 512MB placed on the /tmp directory is a hard limit, meaning it cannot be increased no matter how many please you make to the support team.
Will The Temp Storage Limit Impact You?
Many users can get by with the 512MB limitation for quite some time. In reality, it’s one of those little things that go unnoticed until it causes a problem, and the issues it does cause can drastically slow work processes or even make completing certain tasks impossible.
For instance, many users that need to upload fully designed PDFs easily exceed the 512MB limitation, but there are a handful of other file types that might also bring you to the frustrating conclusion that it’s time for a new solution.
Finding An Alternative Without Hard Limits
Simply put, if you have a need to exceed the 512MB hard limit AWS Lambda places on the /tmp directory, you have to choose an alternative that doesn’t give you such a limit.
The Iron Solution
When Lambda was first released, it was quickly recognized by the Iron.io team as an almost identical product to IronWorker, with some caveats. If you’re not familiar with IronWorker, it’s much the same as Lambda, but with higher limits and a longer history.
At the time of Lambda’s release, IronWorker already had 4 years of production under its belt and had long been running on multiple clouds, including AWS, Rackspace, and Microsoft Azure along with your on-premise and private cloud solutions.
What’s more, IronWorker supports every major programming language and, to top it off, it has higher limits than Lambda does, which is certainly pertinent to the situation you currently find yourself in.
Comparing Apples to Apples
The limits are of primary concern to people who find themselves frustrated with Lambda, and IronWorker doesn’t disappoint. For instance, while Lambda’s default memory size is 128MB with a range of 64MB to 1024MB, IronWorker starts out with a higher default of 320MB and a higher range of 320MB to 2048MB.
Beyond that, IronWorker is able to offer a timeout limit of up to 60 minutes with long-running workers also available, compared to the timeout limit of Lambda that sits at just 60 seconds. Add to that IronWorker’s other features, like its ability to support on-premise deployment, scheduling, and dedicated private clusters, and making the switch is simple.
Interested in learning more about how IronWorker stacks up to your current constraints in the AWS Lambda environment? Want to get advice from our team about how the simplicity and benefits of switching over to an Iron solution? Reach out to our friendly support staff to get answers to all of your questions and get started with the transition to ironclad serverless computing.