Dynamic Function Configuration and its Management in Serverless Computing: A Taxonomy and Future Directions

Maria A. Rodriguez; Rajkumar Buyya; Siddharth Agarwal

REVIEW 4 major objections 5 minor 99 references

Dynamic Function Configuration and its Management in Serverless Computing: A Taxonomy and Future Directions

T0 review · 4 major / 5 minor · reviewed 2026-08-04 · deepseek-v4-flash

Challenge this review Re-run · record.json Download PDF Read on arXiv ↗ Review JSON

Pith's one-line read This survey argues that serverless function resource configuration is a first-class research area and offers a five-dimension taxonomy of existing techniques, positioning itself as the first survey on this aspect of FaaS.

desk verdict A useful first map of FaaS function configuration, but the missing methodology and a few table/prose mismatches should be fixed before the classifications are treated as reliable. read the letter →

arxiv 2510.02404 v2 pith:4BLWLF76 submitted 2025-10-02 cs.SE

Siddharth Agarwal , Maria A. Rodriguez , Rajkumar Buyya This is my paper · ORCID

classification cs.SE

keywords serverlesscomputingFunction-as-a-Servicefunctionconfigurationresourceallocationtaxonomyworkloadmodeloptimisationresearchgaps

verification ladder T0 review T1 audit T2 compute T3 formal

The pith

A machine-rendered reading of the paper's core claim, the machinery that carries it, and where it could break.

The reading

The paper sets out to make a research field out of a practical headache: when a developer deploys a serverless function, they must pick memory, CPU, timeout, and concurrency settings that balance cost and performance with almost no visibility into how the platform allocates resources. It argues that the many scattered proposals for solving this problem—prediction, search, machine learning, analytical models—can be organized by five dimensions: workload shape, deployment platform, performance metric, resource being tuned, and optimization strategy. The paper claims to be the first survey to focus on this specific aspect of FaaS, and its classification table plus gap analysis are meant as a map for researchers and a reference for developers and providers.

What carries the argument

The taxonomy: a five-dimension classification scheme (workload model, deployment environment, key performance indicators, resource optimisation target, configuration strategy) that maps the surveyed literature into cells and exposes which combinations have been studied. It is the load-bearing structure of the paper; the gap analysis and future research directions are derived from cells that are empty or sparse.

What would settle it

Check whether a keyword search across standard computing literature databases for phrases like 'serverless function configuration' or 'FaaS resource allocation' returns a comparable earlier survey focused specifically on configuration, or a paper that fits none of the taxonomy's five dimensions; either finding would undercut the 'first survey' claim or the taxonomy's exhaustiveness.

Watch

Extended reading notes

Core claim

The paper's contribution is a classification, not a new algorithm. It claims that function resource configuration in serverless computing is a distinct research topic, and that the literature can be organized under a taxonomy of workload model (single function vs. workflow/function chain), deployment environment (commercial vs. open-source), key performance indicators (resource utilisation, lifecycle time and cost, data locality), resource optimisation target (coupled memory, decoupled CPU, application-specific), and management strategy (search and path-finding, stochastic/approximate optimisation, machine learning, formal/analytical). Reading roughly forty studies through this frame, the pa

Load-bearing premise

The whole taxonomy depends on the authors having chosen the right papers to review; they do not document a systematic search strategy or inclusion criteria, so if the corpus is skewed, the categories and the gap analysis are skewed with it.

Editorial extensions

If this is right

Researchers in serverless computing gain a shared vocabulary and a reference point for situating new work on function configuration.
The empty and sparse cells of the taxonomy identify concrete open problems: configuration-aware scheduling, dynamic runtime allocation, decoupled resource tuning, and workflow-level configuration.
The survey's claim to be the first on this aspect gives later surveys a baseline to compare against and a corpus to build on.
For developers and providers, the taxonomy shows how the coupled memory-based model of commercial platforms shapes what solutions are even possible.
The classification tables let a reader quickly see which combinations of workload type, platform, KPI, resource target, and strategy have been tried, and which have not.

Reading between the lines

Editorial extensions of the paper, not claims the author makes directly.

The taxonomy may undercount work published in industry venues or adjacent fields such as serverless autoscaling and resource management that address configuration without using that exact term; those works could fit awkwardly or not fit at all.
If the platform landscape shifts toward decoupled resource allocation and specialized hardware, the 'resource optimisation target' dimension may need new sub-dimensions (GPU, FPGA, network) that the current survey does not list.
The observed dominance of memory-configuration studies likely reflects what commercial platforms expose rather than what matters most; a testable extension is whether decoupled configuration research grows as open-source frameworks and heterogeneous hardware become more central.
The 'first survey' framing depends on how 'configuration' is scoped; a related survey on general serverless resource management already exists, so the distinctiveness claim may be sharper than the field's boundaries truly are.

Share X Bluesky LinkedIn Reddit HN

Editorial analysis

A structured set of objections, weighed in public.

Desk editor's note, referee report, and a circularity audit.

Desk Editor's Note

read the letter

Short version: this is the first survey I know of that focuses specifically on function configuration in FaaS, and the taxonomy it proposes is coherent enough to be useful for positioning future work. But the paper's own tables don't always match its prose, and there is no description of how the literature was selected. Those problems are fixable, but they are exactly the kind of thing a referee should push on.

What's genuinely new: the five-part taxonomy — workload model, deployment environment, KPIs, resource targets, and strategy — gives a sensible way to organize the roughly 40 papers it covers. I looked through several of the classifications and most are reasonable. The paper also does a decent job of distinguishing coupled vs. decoupled resource configuration and calling out gaps like configuration-aware scheduling and dynamic input-sensitive allocation. That is real value for someone entering the area.

Where it gets shaky: the 'first survey' and 'comprehensive review' claims rest on a literature-selection process that is not described. No search terms, no databases, no inclusion/exclusion criteria. That alone would be a minor complaint for a short survey, but here the selection is load-bearing: the taxonomy's dimensions are derived from the chosen papers, and the gap analysis is only as good as the coverage. Without the methodology, 'comprehensive' is an assertion, not a result.

Worse, the internal evidence undercuts confidence in the classifications. In §3.1.1, Wisefuse [55] is described as a workflow-characterisation contribution, but its row in Table 2 is all crosses. Akhtar et al.'s work [70] is treated as Bayesian-optimisation-based in §3.4.1, but the corresponding row does not tick Stochastic & Approximate Optimisation. And Table 1 includes [82], a MICRO research paper, in a list of 'related surveys'. These are not just typos in the formatting; they suggest the mapping from papers to taxonomy dimensions was done carefully at the level of individual claims, and the table may not have been checked against the prose. Also, 'Akhtar et al. [70]' should be 'Raza et al.' based on the reference list.

If I were editing: send it to review. The taxonomy itself is a useful artifact and the domain is underserved by surveys. But the authors should be asked to add a methodology section, fix the table/prose conflicts, and re-check the reference attributions. With those changes, I'd cite it as a starting point.

Referee Report

4 major / 5 minor

Summary. The paper surveys research on resource configuration for Function-as-a-Service (FaaS) workloads. It proposes a taxonomy with five top-level dimensions—workload characteristics, deployment environment, key performance indicators, resource optimisation targets, and configuration/management strategy—and applies this taxonomy to classify roughly 40 papers from the serverless systems literature. The paper also compares prior serverless surveys and identifies future research directions. Its central claims are that it is the first survey focused specifically on function configuration and that it provides a comprehensive review of this area.

Significance. If the taxonomy and classification are reliable, the paper would be a useful contribution: it organizes a fragmented body of work on FaaS function configuration, gives a shared vocabulary for workload models, deployment environments, KPIs, resource targets, and solution strategies, and identifies concrete gaps for future work. The granular taxonomy is more focused than prior serverless resource-management surveys, and the paper collects many recent (2019–2024) systems papers that are otherwise scattered. However, the paper's current internal inconsistencies—most visibly in the classification tables—undermine the claim that the taxonomy is a dependable map of the area, and the absence of a documented literature-selection protocol prevents verification of the 'comprehensive' and 'first survey' claims. These issues must be addressed before the survey can serve as a reliable reference.

major comments (4)

[Section 1, 3, 4] The paper presents itself as a 'comprehensive review' and 'the first survey that focus on the function configuration aspect of the FaaS model', but no systematic literature-search methodology is reported. There is no description of databases searched, query terms, inclusion/exclusion criteria, screening process, or quality assessment. For a survey whose central contribution is a taxonomy and a gap analysis, the literature set is load-bearing: without a reproducible protocol, completeness and representativeness cannot be verified. I recommend adding a methodology section (databases, time frame, search strings, inclusion/exclusion criteria, and ideally a PRISMA-style flow diagram), or softening the 'comprehensive'/'first survey' claims to match the actual narrative selection.
[Table 1, 'Our work' row] As printed, the 'Our work' row does not mark the Configuration column as covered. The row reads: ✗ ✗ ✓ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗ ✗, placing the single ✓ under 'Workload General Overview' rather than under 'Configuration'. This directly contradicts Section 1's statement that this is the first survey focused on the function configuration aspect and the paper's title. The row must be corrected so that Configuration is marked covered; if the ✓ under Workload General Overview is also intended, that should be made explicit.
[Table 2, rows [55] and [70]] The classification table is inconsistent with the prose. Wisefuse [55] is described in Section 3.1.1 as relevant to workflow/function-chain composition and in Section 3.3.3 as evidence that direct function-to-function communication is difficult, yet its Table 2 row is all ✗, including the 'Workflow/Function Chain' column. Similarly, Section 3.4.1 states that Akhtar et al. [70] 'propose a Bayesian Optimisation-based prediction method', but the Table 2 row for [70] does not mark 'Stochastic & Approximate Optimisation'. Whichever categorization is intended, the table and the text disagree. These mismatches suggest that the mapping of individual papers to taxonomy dimensions is not yet dependable; the tables should be regenerated from a consistent mapping and checked against the narrative.
[Table 1, composition] Table 1 is titled 'A categorisation of related surveys in Serverless Computing', but several entries are not surveys: [82] is a MICRO research paper on FaaS architecture, [73] is a preliminary study, [46] is an evaluation of production environments, and [91] is an empirical study of development challenges. Additionally, the row for [91] gives the year as 2017, while the reference list gives 2021. This makes the related-survey comparison unreliable and weakens the basis for the 'first survey' claim. The table should be restricted to actual surveys (or relabeled as 'related studies'), and the metadata should be corrected.

minor comments (5)

[Section 1] Grammar: 'the first survey that focus' should be 'the first survey that focuses'.
[Section 3.5.2 / 3.4.1] Bayesian optimisation is attributed to [70] in Section 3.4.1 but to [4] in Section 3.5.2. Please clarify which paper(s) actually use BO, and align the text and the classification table.
[Table 2 / Table 3] The two table parts have the same caption 'A classification of resource management techniques' and appear on separate pages. Use a single table with a shared header or mark the second as a continuation.
[Throughout] Typographical issues: 'server-less' in the abstract, 'sudy' for 'study' in Section 3.5.3, and 'A WS' for 'AWS' in several references and figure text.
[Table 1] The year for [91] should be 2021 (per the reference list), not 2017 as shown in the table.

Circularity Check

0 steps flagged · score 1.0 of 10

No circularity: the survey's taxonomy is a literature-organising construct, not a derivation, and the authors' self-citations are not load-bearing.

full rationale

This is a literature survey and taxonomy, so there is no fitted model, no prediction, and no equation whose output equals its input. The central claims are that the paper identifies aspects of FaaS resource configuration, proposes a taxonomy, and gives a 'comprehensive review.' These claims are supported by the cited primary studies and by the paper's own classification tables; nothing in the taxonomy is defined in terms of the conclusions it is said to support. The self-citations are [2] (the authors' own prior work on input-based memory configuration) and [59] (a Buyya-group survey on resource management). Both are used as ordinary items in the literature: [2] is one of the classified primary works, and [59] is listed among related surveys. Neither is invoked as a uniqueness theorem, an ansatz, or a proof that the taxonomy is forced. The 'first survey' claim is an assertion about literature coverage rather than a result derived from a circular premise; whether the coverage is complete is a correctness/completeness concern, not circularity. Any inconsistencies in Table 2 or the inclusion of [82] in Table 1 would affect reliability of the survey's empirical grounding, but they do not make the paper's reasoning circular under the specified criteria. No circular step was found.

Assumptions & free parameters 0 free parameters · 3 assumptions · 0 invented entities

The central claim rests on domain assumptions about FaaS platform behavior and on the sufficiency of the surveyed literature; there are no fitted parameters or new postulated entities. The taxonomy is a literature-organizing framework, not a quantitative derivation.

assumptions (3)

domain assumption Commercial FaaS platforms allocate CPU, network bandwidth, and I/O proportionally to the configured memory (e.g., AWS Lambda at 1769 MB per vCPU).
Used throughout §2.2-2.3 and §3.4.1 to categorize coupled resource configuration; not proven in the paper but drawn from provider documentation.
domain assumption Function performance and run-time cost are significantly affected by resource configuration and vary non-linearly with input size and workload.
Stated in §2.4.1 and §3.3.2 as the motivation for the survey; supported by cited works but assumed as background.
domain assumption The set of papers reviewed is representative of the full function-configuration literature.
The paper claims comprehensiveness and 'first survey' status without providing a systematic search protocol; the taxonomy's completeness depends on this assumption. This is the weakest assumption.

how reviews work

0 comments

Cite this review

Pith. "Pith review of Dynamic Function Configuration and its Management in Serverless Computing: A Taxonomy and Future Directions." pith.science (2026). https://pith.science/paper/4BLWLF76

@misc{pith2026251002404,
  author       = {Pith},
  title        = {Pith review of: Dynamic Function Configuration and its Management in Serverless Computing: A Taxonomy and Future Directions},
  year         = {2026},
  howpublished = {\url{https://pith.science/paper/4BLWLF76}},
  note         = {Machine review of arXiv:2510.02404}
}

read the original abstract

The serverless cloud computing model offers a framework where the service provider abstracts the underlying infrastructure management from developers. In this serverless model, FaaS provides an event-driven, function-oriented computing service characterised by fine-grained, usage-based pricing that eliminates cost for idle resources. Platforms like AWS Lambda, Azure Functions, and Cloud Run Functions require developers to configure their function(s) with minimum operational resources for its successful execution. This resource allocation influences both the operational expense and the performance quality of these functions. However, a noticeable lack of platform transparency forces developers to rely on expert knowledge or experience-based ad-hoc decisions to request desired function resources. This makes optimal resource configuration a non-trivial task while adhering to performance constraints. Furthermore, while commercial platforms often scale resources like CPU and network bandwidth proportional to memory, open-source frameworks permit independent configuration of function resources, introducing additional complexity for developers aiming to optimise their functions. These complexities have directed researchers to resolve developer challenges and advance towards an efficient server-less execution model. In this article, we identify different aspects of resource configuration techniques in FaaS settings and propose a taxonomy of factors that influence function design, configuration, run-time cost, and performance guarantees. We conduct an analysis of existing literature on resource configuration to present a comprehensive review of current studies on function configuration. We also identify existing research gaps and suggest future research directions to enhance function configuration and strengthen the capabilities of serverless computing environments to drive its broader adoption.

Figures

Figures reproduced from arXiv: 2510.02404 by the authors.

**Figure 2.** The Taxonomy of Dynamic Function Configuration & Management in Serverless Computing [PITH_FULL_IMAGE:figures/full_fig_p011_2.png] view at source ↗

Discussion (0). Continue with ORCID to comment.

Reference graph

Works this paper leans on

99 extracted references · 5 canonical work pages

[55]

Ashraf Mahgoub, Edgardo Barsallo Yi, Karthick Shankar, Eshaan Minocha, Sameh Elnikety, Saurabh Bagchi, and Somali Chaterji. 2022. Wisefuse: Workload characterization and dag transformation for serverless workflows.Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems6, 2 (2022), 1–28

2022
[70]

Ali Raza, Nabeel Akhtar, Vatche Isahagian, Ibrahim Matta, and Lei Huang. 2023. Configuration and Placement of Serverless Applications Using Statistical Learning.IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management20, 2 (2023), 1065–1077

2023
[82]

Mohammad Shahrad, Jonathan Balkind, and David Wentzlaff. 2019. Architectural Implications of Function-as-a- Service Computing. InProceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (Columbus, OH, USA)(MICRO ’52). New York, NY, USA, 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352460.3358296

arXiv 2019
[73]

Thirukovela Venkata Sarathi, Julakanti Sai Nischal Reddy, Peddaboinolu Shiva, Rounak Saha, Anurag Satpathy, and Sourav Kanti Addya. 2022. A Preliminary Study of Serverless Platforms for Latency Sensitive Applications. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT). 1–6

2022
[46]

Hyungro Lee, Kumar Satyam, and Geoffrey Fox. 2018. Evaluation of Production Serverless Computing Environments. In2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). 442–450

2018
[91]

Jinfeng Wen, Zhenpeng Chen, Yi Liu, Yiling Lou, Yun Ma, Gang Huang, Xin Jin, and Xuanzhe Liu. 2021. An Empirical Study on Challenges of Application Development in Serverless Computing. InProceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Athens, Greece)(ESEC/FSE 2...

arXiv 2021
[1]

Alexandru Agache, Marc Brooker, Andreea Florescu, Alexandra Iordache, Anthony Liguori, Rolf Neugebauer, Phil Piwonka, and Diana-Maria Popa. 2020. Firecracker: lightweight virtualization for serverless applications. InProceedings of the 17th Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation(Santa Clara, CA, USA)(NSDI’20). USA, 419–434

2020
[2]

Rodriguez, and Rajkumar Buyya

Siddharth Agarwal, Maria A. Rodriguez, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2024. Input-Based Ensemble-Learning Method for Dynamic Memory Configuration of Serverless Computing Functions. InProceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing(Sharjah, UAE)(UCC ’24). IEEE CS Press, USA, 346–355

2024

Show all 99 references

[3]

Michael O Agbaje, AO Adebayo, Alfred A Udosen, Daniel Gogfrey, and Raymond O Bamidele. 2022. Serverless Computing Systems: A Review.IUP Journal of Computer Sciences16, 1 (2022)

2022
[4]

Nabeel Akhtar, Ali Raza, Vatche Ishakian, and Ibrahim Matta. 2020. COSE: Configuring Serverless Functions using Statistical Learning. InIEEE INFOCOM 2020 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. 129–138

2020
[5]

Omar Alqaryoutia and Nur Siyamb. 2018. Serverless Computing and Scheduling Tasks on Cloud: A.American Scientific Research Journal for Engineering, Technology, and Sciences (ASRJETS)40, 1 (2018), 235–247

2018
[6]

2024.Dask.distributed: Lightweight library for distributed computing in Python

Anaconda. 2024.Dask.distributed: Lightweight library for distributed computing in Python. Retrieved November 30, 2024 from https://distributed.dask.org/en/stable/

2024
[7]

2024.Knative is an Open-Source Enterprise-level solution to build Serverless and Event Driven Applications

Knative Authors. 2024.Knative is an Open-Source Enterprise-level solution to build Serverless and Event Driven Applications. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://knative.dev/docs/

2024
[8]

2020.Serverless Case Study - Netflix

AWS. 2020.Serverless Case Study - Netflix. https://dashbird.io/blog/serverless-case-study-netflix/ last accessed on 01/12/2024

2020
[9]

AWS. 2023. AWS Compute Optimizer. https://aws.amazon.com/compute-optimizer/

2023
[10]

2023.ServerlessVideo: Connect with users around the world!https://video.serverlessland.com/ last accessed on 27/11/2024

AWS. 2023.ServerlessVideo: Connect with users around the world!https://video.serverlessland.com/ last accessed on 27/11/2024

2023
[11]

2023.Welcome to Serverless Land

AWS. 2023.Welcome to Serverless Land. https://serverlessland.com/ last accessed on 01/12/2024

2023
[12]

2017.Serverless Computing: Current Trends and Open Problems

Ioana Baldini, Paul Castro, Kerry Chang, Perry Cheng, Stephen Fink, Vatche Ishakian, Nick Mitchell, Vinod Muthusamy, Rodric Rabbah, Aleksander Slominski, and Philippe Suter. 2017.Serverless Computing: Current Trends and Open Problems. Springer Singapore, Singapore, 1–20. https...

2017 doi
[13]

Bhasi, Jashwant Raj Gunasekaran, Aakash Sharma, Mahmut Taylan Kandemir, and Chita Das

Vivek M. Bhasi, Jashwant Raj Gunasekaran, Aakash Sharma, Mahmut Taylan Kandemir, and Chita Das. 2022. Cypress: Input Size-Sensitive Container Provisioning and Request Scheduling for Serverless Platforms. InProceedings of the 13th Symposium on Cloud Computing(San Francisco, Cal...

2022
[15]

Aakash Bhattacharya and Tian Wen. 2025. Understanding and Remediating Cold Starts: An AWS Lambda Perspective. https://aws.amazon.com/blogs/compute/understanding-and-remediating-cold-starts-an-aws-lambda-perspective/

2025
[16]

Muhammad Bilal, Marco Canini, Rodrigo Fonseca, and Rodrigo Rodrigues. 2023. With Great Freedom Comes Great Opportunity: Rethinking Resource Allocation for Serverless Functions. InProceedings of the Eighteenth European Conference on Computer Systems(Rome, Italy)(EuroSys ’23). N...

2023
[17]

2023.Capital One Saves Developer Time and Reduces Costs by Going Serverless on A WS

CapitalOne. 2023.Capital One Saves Developer Time and Reduces Costs by Going Serverless on A WS. https://aws. amazon.com/solutions/case-studies/capital-one-lambda-ecs-case-study/ last accessed on 27/11/2024

2023
[18]

Alex Casalboni. 2023. Profiling functions with AWS Lambda Power Tuning. https://github.com/alexcasalboni/aws- lambda-power-tuning

2023
[19]

Xinghan Chen, Ling-Hong Hung, Robert Cordingly, and Wes Lloyd. 2023. X86 vs. ARM64: An Investigation of Factors Influencing Serverless Performance. InProceedings of the 9th International Workshop on Serverless Computing(Bologna, Italy)(WoSC ’23). New York, NY, USA, 7–12. https...

2023
[20]

Robert Cordingly, Sonia Xu, and Wes Lloyd. 2022. Function Memory Optimization for Heterogeneous Serverless Platforms with CPU Time Accounting. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E). 104–115

2022
[21]

Robert Cordingly, Hanfei Yu, Varik Hoang, David Perez, David Foster, Zohreh Sadeghi, Rashad Hatchett, and Wes J Lloyd. 2020. Implications of programming language selection for serverless data processing pipelines. In2020 IEEE Intl Conf on Dependable, Autonomic and Secure Compu...

2020
[22]

Yan Cui. 2017. aws lambda – compare coldstart time with different languages, memory and code sizes. https://theburningmonk.com/2017/06/aws-lambda-compare-coldstart-time-with-different-languages- memory-and-code-sizes/

2017
[23]

Yan Cui. 2023. How does language, memory and package size affect cold starts of AWS Lambda? https://www.pluralsight.com/resources/blog/cloud/does-coding-language-memory-or-package-size-affect- cold-starts-of-aws-lambda

2023
[24]

2020.The state of serverless, 2020

Datadog. 2020.The state of serverless, 2020. https://www.datadoghq.com/state-of-serverless-2020/ last accessed on 01/12/2024

2020
[25]

2022.The state of serverless, 2022

Datadog. 2022.The state of serverless, 2022. https://www.datadoghq.com/state-of-serverless-2022/ last accessed on 01/12/2024

2022
[26]

Simon Eismann, Long Bui, Johannes Grohmann, Cristina Abad, Nikolas Herbst, and Samuel Kounev. 2021. Sizeless: Predicting the Optimal Size of Serverless Functions. InProceedings of the 22nd International Middleware Conference (Québec city, Canada)(Middleware ’21). New York, NY,...

2021
[27]

Simon Eismann, Johannes Grohmann, Erwin van Eyk, Nikolas Herbst, and Samuel Kounev. 2020. Predicting the Costs of Serverless Workflows. InProceedings of the ACM/SPEC International Conference on Performance Engineering (Edmonton AB, Canada)(ICPE ’20). New York, NY, USA, 265–276...

2020
[28]

Abad, and Alexandru Iosup

Simon Eismann, Joel Scheuner, Erwin van Eyk, Maximilian Schwinger, Johannes Grohmann, Nikolas Herbst, Cristina L. Abad, and Alexandru Iosup. 2022. The State of Serverless Applications: Collection, Characterization, and Community Consensus.IEEE Transactions on Software Engineer...

2022
[29]

Tarek Elgamal, Atul Sandur, Klara Nahrstedt, and Gul Agha. 2018. Costless: Optimizing Cost of Serverless Computing through Function Fusion and Placement. In2018 IEEE/ACM Symposium on Edge Computing (SEC). 300–312

2018
[30]

Muhammed Golec, Guneet Kaur Walia, Mohit Kumar, Felix Cuadrado, Sukhpal Singh Gill, and Steve Uhlig. 2024. Cold start latency in serverless computing: A systematic review, taxonomy, and future directions.Comput. Surveys 57, 3 (2024), 1–36

2024
[31]

2024.Cloud Functions

Google. 2024.Cloud Functions. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://cloud.google.com/functions

2024
[32]

2024.Cloud Run Functions

Google. 2024.Cloud Run Functions. Retrieved August 30, 2024 from https://cloud.google.com/blog/products/serverless/ google-cloud-functions-is-now-cloud-run-functions

2024
[33]

2024.CPU allocation (services)

Google. 2024.CPU allocation (services). Retrieved August 30, 2024 from https://cloud.google.com/run/docs/configuring/ cpu-allocation

2024
[34]

2024.Workflows

Google. 2024.Workflows. Retrieved August 30, 2024 from https://cloud.google.com/workflows

2024
[35]

Kannan Govindarajan and Andrè De Tienne. 2023. Resource Management in Serverless Computing - Review, Research Challenges, and Prospects. In2023 12th International Conference on Advanced Computing (ICoAC). 1–5

2023
[36]

Zhiyuan Guo, Zachary Blanco, Mohammad Shahrad, Zerui Wei, Bili Dong, Jinmou Li, Ishaan Pota, Harry Xu, and Yiying Zhang. 2022. Decomposing and executing serverless applications as resource graphs.arXiv preprint arXiv:2206.13444(2022), 8

2022 arXiv
[37]

Muhammad Hamza, Muhammad Azeem Akbar, and Rafael Capilla. 2024. Understanding Cost Dynamics of Serverless Computing: An Empirical Study. InSoftware Business, Sami Hyrynsalmi, Jürgen Münch, Kari Smolander, and Jorge Melegati (Eds.). Springer Nature Switzerland, Cham, 456–470

2024
[38]

Hassan B Hassan, Saman A Barakat, and Qusay I Sarhan. 2021. Survey on serverless computing.Journal of Cloud Computing10, 1 (2021), 1–29

2021
[39]

Hellerstein, Jose Faleiro, Joseph E

Joseph M. Hellerstein, Jose Faleiro, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Alexey Tumanov, and Chenggang Wu. 2018. Serverless Computing: One Step Forward, Two Steps Back. arXiv:1812.03651 [cs.DC]

2018 arXiv
[40]

Jananie Jarachanthan, Li Chen, Fei Xu, and Bo Li. 2022. Astrea: Auto-Serverless Analytics Towards Cost-Efficiency and QoS-Awareness.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems33, 12 (2022), 3833–3849

2022
[41]

Anshul Jindal, Mohak Chadha, Shajulin Benedict, and Michael Gerndt. 2022. Estimating the Capacities of Function- as-a-Service Functions. InProceedings of the 14th IEEE/ACM International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing Companion(Leicester, United Kingdom)(UCC ’21). Ne...

2022
[42]

Gonzalez, Raluca Ada Popa, Ion Stoica, and David A

Eric Jonas, Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Chia-Che Tsai, Anurag Khandelwal, Qifan Pu, Vaishaal Shankar, Joao Carreira, Karl Krauth, Neeraja Yadwadkar, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Raluca Ada Popa, Ion Stoica, and David A. Patterson. 2019. Cloud Programming Simplified: A Berk...

2019 arXiv
[43]

Reza HoseinyFarahabady, Young Choon Lee, and Albert Y

Young Ki Kim, M. Reza HoseinyFarahabady, Young Choon Lee, and Albert Y. Zomaya. 2020. Automated Fine-Grained CPU Cap Control in Serverless Computing Platform.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems31, 10 (2020), 2289–2301. J. ACM, Vol. XX, No. XX, Article XXX. Pu...

2020
[44]

Abad, Alexandru Iosup, Ian Foster, Prashant Shenoy, Omer Rana, and Andrew A

Samuel Kounev, Nikolas Herbst, Cristina L. Abad, Alexandru Iosup, Ian Foster, Prashant Shenoy, Omer Rana, and Andrew A. Chien. 2023. Serverless Computing: What It Is, and What It Is Not?Commun. ACM66, 9 (aug 2023), 80–92. https://doi.org/10.1145/3587249

2023 doi
[45]

2023.Serverless Cloud Computing: State of the Art and Challenges

Vincent Lannurien, Laurent D’Orazio, Olivier Barais, and Jalil Boukhobza. 2023.Serverless Cloud Computing: State of the Art and Challenges. Springer International Publishing, Cham, 275–316. https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-031-26633-1_11

2023 doi
[47]

Ming Li, Jianshan Zhang, Jingfeng Lin, Zheyi Chen, and Xianghan Zheng. 2023. FireFace: Leveraging Internal Function Features for Configuration of Functions on Serverless Edge Platforms.Sensors23, 18 (2023). https: //doi.org/10.3390/s23187829

2023 doi
[48]

Yongkang Li, Yanying Lin, Yang Wang, Kejiang Ye, and Chengzhong Xu. 2023. Serverless Computing: State-of-the-Art, Challenges and Opportunities.IEEE Transactions on Services Computing16, 2 (2023), 1522–1539

2023
[49]

Zijun Li, Linsong Guo, Jiagan Cheng, Quan Chen, Bingsheng He, and Minyi Guo. 2022. The Serverless Computing Survey: A Technical Primer for Design Architecture.ACM Comput. Surv.54, 10s, Article 220 (sep 2022), 34 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3508360

2022 doi
[50]

Zengpeng Li, Huiqun Yu, and Guisheng Fan. 2022. Time-cost efficient memory configuration for serverless workflow applications.Concurrency and Computation: Practice and Experience34, 27 (2022), e7308

2022
[51]

Changyuan Lin and Hamzeh Khazaei. 2020. Modeling and optimization of performance and cost of serverless applications.IEEE Transactions on Parallel and Distributed Systems32, 3 (2020), 615–632

2020
[52]

Gonzalez, and Joseph M

Xiayue Charles Lin, Joseph E. Gonzalez, and Joseph M. Hellerstein. 2020. Serverless Boom or Bust? An Analysis of Economic Incentives. In12th USENIX Workshop on Hot Topics in Cloud Computing (HotCloud 20). USENIX Association. https://www.usenix.org/conference/hotcloud20/present...

2020
[53]

Wes Lloyd, Shruti Ramesh, Swetha Chinthalapati, Lan Ly, and Shrideep Pallickara. 2018. Serverless Computing: An Investigation of Factors Influencing Microservice Performance. In2018 IEEE International Conference on Cloud Engineering (IC2E). 159–169

2018
[54]

Ashraf Mahgoub, Edgardo Barsallo Yi, Karthick Shankar, Sameh Elnikety, Somali Chaterji, and Saurabh Bagchi. 2022. ORION and the Three Rights: Sizing, Bundling, and Prewarming for Serverless DAGs. In16th USENIX Symposium on Operating Systems Design and Implementation (OSDI 22)....

2022
[56]

Nima Mahmoudi and Hamzeh Khazaei. 2022. Performance Modeling of Serverless Computing Platforms.IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing10, 4 (2022), 2834–2847

2022
[57]

Nima Mahmoudi and Hamzeh Khazaei. 2023. Performance Modeling of Metric-Based Serverless Computing Platforms. IEEE Transactions on Cloud Computing11, 2 (2023), 1899–1910

2023
[58]

Amjad Yousef Majid and Eduard Marin. 2023. A Review of Deep Reinforcement Learning in Serverless Computing: Function Scheduling and Resource Auto-Scaling. arXiv:2311.12839 [cs.DC]

2023 arXiv
[59]

Anupama Mampage, Shanika Karunasekera, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2022. A Holistic View on Resource Management in Serverless Computing Environments: Taxonomy and Future Directions.ACM Comput. Surv.54, 11s, Article 222 (sep 2022), 36 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/3510412

2022 doi
[60]

2024.Azure Durable Functions documentation

Microsoft. 2024.Azure Durable Functions documentation. Retrieved August 2, 2024 from https://learn.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/azure-functions/durable/

2024
[61]

2024.Azure Functions documentation

Microsoft. 2024.Azure Functions documentation. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://learn.microsoft.com/en- us/azure/azure-functions/

2024
[62]

2025.Azure Functions Consumption Plan

Microsoft. 2025.Azure Functions Consumption Plan. https://learn.microsoft.com/en-us/azure/azure-functions/ consumption-plan Accessed: 2025-03-15

2025
[63]

Arshia Moghimi, Joe Hattori, Alexander Li, Mehdi Ben Chikha, and Mohammad Shahrad. 2023. Parrotfish: Parametric Regression for Optimizing Serverless Functions. InProceedings of the 2023 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing (Santa Cruz, CA, USA)(SoCC ’23). New York, NY, USA, 177–19...

2023
[64]

Djob Mvondo, Mathieu Bacou, Kevin Nguetchouang, Lucien Ngale, Stéphane Pouget, Josiane Kouam, Renaud Lachaize, Jinho Hwang, Tim Wood, Daniel Hagimont, Noël De Palma, Bernabé Batchakui, and Alain Tchana. 2021. OFC: An Opportunistic Caching System for FaaS Platforms. InProceedin...

2021 doi
[65]

2016.OpenFaaS-Serverless function, made simple

OpenFaaS. 2016.OpenFaaS-Serverless function, made simple. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://www.openfaas. com/ J. ACM, Vol. XX, No. XX, Article XXX. Publication date: September 2025. Dynamic Function Configuration and its Management in Serverless Computing: A Taxonomy and...

2016
[66]

2016.OpenWhisk - Open Source Serverless Cloud Platform

OpenWhisk. 2016.OpenWhisk - Open Source Serverless Cloud Platform. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https: //openwhisk.apache.org/

2016
[67]

2016.OpenWhisk system details

OpenWhisk. 2016.OpenWhisk system details. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://github.com/apache/openwhisk/ blob/master/docs/reference.md

2016
[68]

2024.Cloud Functions

Oracle. 2024.Cloud Functions. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://www.oracle.com/au/cloud/cloud-native/ functions/

2024
[69]

Manish Pandey and Young Woo Kwon. 2023. Optimizing Memory Allocation in a Serverless Architecture through Function Scheduling. In2023 IEEE/ACM 23rd International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing Workshops (CCGridW). 275–277

2023
[71]

Yadwadkar, and Christos Kozyrakis

Francisco Romero, Mark Zhao, Neeraja J. Yadwadkar, and Christos Kozyrakis. 2021. Llama: A Heterogeneous & Serverless Framework for Auto-Tuning Video Analytics Pipelines. InProceedings of the ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing(Seattle, WA, USA)(SoCC ’21). New York, NY, USA, 1–17....

2021
[72]

Gor Safaryan, Anshul Jindal, Mohak Chadha, and Michael Gerndt. 2022. SLAM: SLO-Aware Memory Optimization for Serverless Applications. In2022 IEEE 15th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). 30–39

2022
[74]

Yadwadkar, Raluca Ada Popa, Joseph E

Johann Schleier-Smith, Vikram Sreekanti, Anurag Khandelwal, Joao Carreira, Neeraja J. Yadwadkar, Raluca Ada Popa, Joseph E. Gonzalez, Ion Stoica, and David A. Patterson. 2021. What Serverless Computing is and Should Become: The next Phase of Cloud Computing.Commun. ACM64, 5 (a...

2021 doi
[75]

Özgür Sedefoğlu and Hasan Sözer. 2021. Cost Minimization for Deploying Serverless Functions. InProceedings of the 36th Annual ACM Symposium on Applied Computing(Virtual Event, Republic of Korea)(SAC ’21). New York, NY, USA, 83–85. https://doi.org/10.1145/3412841.3442069

2021
[76]

2024.A WS Lambda - Run code without thinking about servers or clusters

Amazon Web Services. 2024.A WS Lambda - Run code without thinking about servers or clusters. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/

2024
[77]

2024.A WS Lambda Pricing

Amazon Web Services. 2024.A WS Lambda Pricing. Retrieved August 2, 2024 from https://aws.amazon.com/lambda/ pricing/

2024
[78]

2024.A WS Step Functions

Amazon Web Services. 2024.A WS Step Functions. Retrieved August 2, 2024 from https://aws.amazon.com/step- functions/

2024
[79]

2024.Lambda quotas

Amazon Web Services. 2024.Lambda quotas. Retrieved August 2, 2024 from https://docs.aws.amazon.com/lambda/ latest/dg/gettingstarted-limits.html

2024
[80]

Yannis Sfakianakis, Manolis Marazakis, Christos Kozanitis, and Angelos Bilas. 2022. LatEst: Vertical elasticity for millisecond serverless execution. In2022 22nd IEEE International Symposium on Cluster, Cloud and Internet Computing (CCGrid). 879–885

2022
[81]

Hossein Shafiei, Ahmad Khonsari, and Payam Mousavi. 2022. Serverless Computing: A Survey of Opportunities, Challenges, and Applications.ACM Comput. Surv.54, 11s, Article 239 (nov 2022), 32 pages. https://doi.org/10.1145/ 3510611

2022
[83]

Yadwadkar

Prasoon Sinha, Kostis Kaffes, and Neeraja J. Yadwadkar. 2023. Online Learning for Right-Sizing Serverless Functions. InArchitecture and System Support for Transformer Models (ASSYST @ISCA 2023). https://openreview.net/forum?id= 4zdPNY3SDQk

2023
[84]

Josef Spillner. 2021. Resource Management for Cloud Functions with Memory Tracing, Profiling and Autotuning. InProceedings of the 2020 Sixth International Workshop on Serverless Computing(<conf-loc>, <city>Delft</city>, <country>Netherlands</country>, </conf-loc>)(WoSC ’20). N...

2021
[85]

Amoghavarsha Suresh, Gagan Somashekar, Anandh Varadarajan, Veerendra Ramesh Kakarla, Hima Upadhyay, and Anshul Gandhi. 2020. ENSURE: Efficient Scheduling and Autonomous Resource Management in Serverless Environments. InProceedings of the 2020 IEEE International Conference on A...

2020
[86]

Davide Taibi, Nabil El Ioini, Claus Pahl, and Jan Raphael Schmid Niederkofler. 2020. Serverless cloud computing (function-as-a-service) patterns: A multivocal literature review. InProceedings of the 10th International Conference on Cloud Computing and Services Science (CLOSER’...

2020
[87]

Yang Tang and Junfeng Yang. 2020. Lambdata: Optimizing Serverless Computing by Making Data Intents Explicit. In 2020 IEEE 13th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). 294–303

2020
[88]

Dimitrios Tomaras, Michail Tsenos, and Vana Kalogeraki. 2023. Prediction-driven resource provisioning for serverless container runtimes. In2023 IEEE International Conference on Autonomic Computing and Self-Organizing Systems (ACSOS). 1–6

2023
[89]

Weiguo Wang, Quanwang Wu, Zhiyong Zhang, Jie Zeng, Xiang Zhang, and Mingqiang Zhou. 2023. A probabilistic modeling and evolutionary optimization approach for serverless workflow configuration.Software: Practice and Experience(2023)

2023
[90]

Ziyi Wang, Songyu Zhang, Jing Cheng, Zhixiong Wu, Zhen Cao, and Yong Cui. 2023. Edge-Assisted Adaptive Config- uration for Serverless-Based Video Analytics. In2023 IEEE 43rd International Conference on Distributed Computing Systems (ICDCS). 248–258

2023
[92]

Zhaojie Wen, Yishuo Wang, and Fangming Liu. 2022. StepConf: SLO-Aware Dynamic Resource Configuration for Serverless Function Workflows. InIEEE INFOCOM 2022 - IEEE Conference on Computer Communications. 1868–1877

2022
[93]

2023.A WS re:Invent 2023 - Best practices for serverless developers

Julian Wood and Chris Munns. 2023.A WS re:Invent 2023 - Best practices for serverless developers. Retrieved January 2, 2024 from https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sdCA0Y7QDrM

2023
[94]

Hao Wu, Junxiao Deng, Hao Fan, Shadi Ibrahim, Song Wu, and Hai Jin. 2023. QoS-Aware and Cost-Efficient Dynamic Resource Allocation for Serverless ML Workflows. In2023 IEEE International Parallel and Distributed Processing Symposium (IPDPS). 886–896

2023
[95]

Miao Zhang, Yifei Zhu, Jiangchuan Liu, Feng Wang, and Fangxin Wang. 2022. CharmSeeker: Automated Pipeline Configuration for Serverless Video Processing.IEEE/ACM Transactions on Networking30, 6 (2022), 2730–2743

2022
[96]

Miao Zhang, Yifei Zhu, Cong Zhang, and Jiangchuan Liu. 2019. Video processing with serverless computing: a measurement study. InProceedings of the 29th ACM Workshop on Network and Operating Systems Support for Digital Audio and Video(Amherst, Massachusetts)(NOSSDA V ’19). New ...

2019
[97]

Xiaoyang Zhao, Siran Yang, Jiamang Wang, Lansong Diao, Lin Qu, and Chuan Wu. 2024. FaPES: Enabling Efficient Elastic Scaling for Serverless Machine Learning Platforms. InProceedings of the 2024 ACM Symposium on Cloud Computing. 443–459

2024
[98]

Zhuangzhuang Zhou, Yanqi Zhang, and Christina Delimitrou. 2022. AQUATOPE: QoS-and-Uncertainty-Aware Resource Management for Multi-Stage Serverless Workflows. InProceedings of the 28th ACM International Conference on Architectural Support for Programming Languages and Operating...

2022
[99]

Lulai Zhu, Giorgos Giotis, Vasilis Tountopoulos, and Giuliano Casale. 2021. RDOF: Deployment Optimization for Function as a Service. In2021 IEEE 14th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). 508–514

2021
[100]

Tetiana Zubko, Anshul Jindal, Mohak Chadha, and Michael Gerndt. 2022. MAFF: Self-adaptive Memory Optimization for Serverless Functions. InService-Oriented and Cloud Computing, Fabrizio Montesi, George Angelos Papadopoulos, and Wolf Zimmermann (Eds.). Springer International Pub...

2022

Pith tools

Reviewed August 4, 2026 · model on record in the stance chip above.

[1] [55]

Ashraf Mahgoub, Edgardo Barsallo Yi, Karthick Shankar, Eshaan Minocha, Sameh Elnikety, Saurabh Bagchi, and Somali Chaterji. 2022. Wisefuse: Workload characterization and dag transformation for serverless workflows.Proceedings of the ACM on Measurement and Analysis of Computing Systems6, 2 (2022), 1–28

2022

[2] [70]

Ali Raza, Nabeel Akhtar, Vatche Isahagian, Ibrahim Matta, and Lei Huang. 2023. Configuration and Placement of Serverless Applications Using Statistical Learning.IEEE Transactions on Network and Service Management20, 2 (2023), 1065–1077

2023

[3] [82]

Mohammad Shahrad, Jonathan Balkind, and David Wentzlaff. 2019. Architectural Implications of Function-as-a- Service Computing. InProceedings of the 52nd Annual IEEE/ACM International Symposium on Microarchitecture (Columbus, OH, USA)(MICRO ’52). New York, NY, USA, 1063–1075. https://doi.org/10.1145/3352460.3358296

arXiv 2019

[4] [73]

Thirukovela Venkata Sarathi, Julakanti Sai Nischal Reddy, Peddaboinolu Shiva, Rounak Saha, Anurag Satpathy, and Sourav Kanti Addya. 2022. A Preliminary Study of Serverless Platforms for Latency Sensitive Applications. In2022 IEEE International Conference on Electronics, Computing and Communication Technologies (CONECCT). 1–6

2022

[5] [46]

Hyungro Lee, Kumar Satyam, and Geoffrey Fox. 2018. Evaluation of Production Serverless Computing Environments. In2018 IEEE 11th International Conference on Cloud Computing (CLOUD). 442–450

2018

[6] [91]

Jinfeng Wen, Zhenpeng Chen, Yi Liu, Yiling Lou, Yun Ma, Gang Huang, Xin Jin, and Xuanzhe Liu. 2021. An Empirical Study on Challenges of Application Development in Serverless Computing. InProceedings of the 29th ACM Joint Meeting on European Software Engineering Conference and Symposium on the Foundations of Software Engineering (Athens, Greece)(ESEC/FSE 2...

arXiv 2021

[7] [1]

Alexandru Agache, Marc Brooker, Andreea Florescu, Alexandra Iordache, Anthony Liguori, Rolf Neugebauer, Phil Piwonka, and Diana-Maria Popa. 2020. Firecracker: lightweight virtualization for serverless applications. InProceedings of the 17th Usenix Conference on Networked Systems Design and Implementation(Santa Clara, CA, USA)(NSDI’20). USA, 419–434

2020

[8] [2]

Rodriguez, and Rajkumar Buyya

Siddharth Agarwal, Maria A. Rodriguez, and Rajkumar Buyya. 2024. Input-Based Ensemble-Learning Method for Dynamic Memory Configuration of Serverless Computing Functions. InProceedings of the Seventeenth International Conference on Utility and Cloud Computing(Sharjah, UAE)(UCC ’24). IEEE CS Press, USA, 346–355

2024