Confusingly, "Serverless" doesn't mean there's no server. It means that you don't have to manage a server yourself.

My preferred definition of serverless is scale-to-zero - where if your app isn't getting any traffic you pay nothing (as opposed to paying a constant fee for having your own server running that's not actually doing any work), then you pay more as the traffic scales up.

Frustratingly there are some "serverless" offerings out there which DO charge you even for no traffic - "Amazon Aurora Serverless v1" did that, I believe they fixed it in v2.

▲

codedokode 8 hours ago | parent [-]

Then it should be called manageless?

	▲	DangitBobby 8 hours ago \| parent \| next [-]
		Still confusing, since infrastructure you don't have to manage yourself is sometimes called "managed". It makes sense from the perspective of "you are paying us to manage this for you".
	▲	simonw 8 hours ago \| parent \| prev \| next [-]
		It's a terrible name, but it's been around for over a decade now so we're stuck with it. I mostly choose not to use it, because I don't like using ambiguous terminology if I can be more specific instead. So I'll say things like "scale-to-zero".
	▲	NaomiLehman 6 hours ago \| parent \| prev [-]
		these are just automanaged cloud servers, I guess?