Pith. sign in

REVIEW

Function-as-a-Service Performance Evaluation: A Multivocal Literature Review

Not yet reviewed by Pith; the record is open.

This paper has not been read by Pith yet. Machine review is queued; the pith claim, tier, and objections will appear here once it completes.

SPECIMEN: schema-true, not a live event

T0 review · schema-true

One-sentence machine reading of the paper's core claim.

pith:XXXXXXXX · record.json · timestamp

arxiv 2004.03276 v3 pith:H3EKICL6 submitted 2020-04-07 cs.PF cs.DC

Function-as-a-Service Performance Evaluation: A Multivocal Literature Review

classification cs.PF cs.DC
keywords faasstudiesliteraturecloudperformanceplatformacademicdiscover
verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal T4 reserved
0 comments
read the original abstract

Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) is one form of the serverless cloud computing paradigm and is defined through FaaS platforms (e.g., AWS Lambda) executing event-triggered code snippets (i.e., functions). Many studies that empirically evaluate the performance of such FaaS platforms have started to appear but we are currently lacking a comprehensive understanding of the overall domain. To address this gap, we conducted a multivocal literature review (MLR) covering 112 studies from academic (51) and grey (61) literature. We find that existing work mainly studies the AWS Lambda platform and focuses on micro-benchmarks using simple functions to measure CPU speed and FaaS platform overhead (i.e., container cold starts). Further, we discover a mismatch between academic and industrial sources on tested platform configurations, find that function triggers remain insufficiently studied, and identify HTTP API gateways and cloud storages as the most used external service integrations. Following existing guidelines on experimentation in cloud systems, we discover many flaws threatening the reproducibility of experiments presented in the surveyed studies. We conclude with a discussion of gaps in literature and highlight methodological suggestions that may serve to improve future FaaS performance evaluation studies.

discussion (0)

Sign in with ORCID, Apple, or X to comment. Anyone can read and Pith papers without signing in.