OpenFaaS vs faasd

Overview

OpenFaaS

Stacks54

Followers234

Votes17

GitHub Stars26.0K

Forks2.0K

faasd

Stacks0

Followers6

Votes0

GitHub Stars3.2K

Forks230

OpenFaaS vs faasd: What are the differences?

Introduction: OpenFaaS and faasd are both serverless platforms that allow users to run serverless functions in a containerized environment. These platforms provide a scalable and cost-effective way to deploy applications without managing the infrastructure.

Deployment Method: OpenFaaS is a full-fledged platform that requires a Kubernetes cluster for its deployment. On the other hand, faasd is a lightweight alternative that can be deployed without Kubernetes, making it suitable for smaller environments or edge computing scenarios.
Resource Consumption: OpenFaaS typically requires more resources due to its dependency on Kubernetes, which can be resource-intensive. In contrast, faasd is more lightweight and consumes fewer resources, making it a more efficient option for scenarios where resource optimization is crucial.
Management Complexity: OpenFaaS offers more advanced features and customization options, but this comes at the cost of increased management complexity. Faasd, being a slimmed-down version, sacrifices some of these features to provide a simpler and more streamlined user experience.
Community Support: OpenFaaS has a larger and more established community compared to faasd, which translates to more resources, plugins, and community-created integrations. Faasd, being a newer and less widely adopted platform, may have a smaller community and fewer available resources.
Availability of Ecosystem: OpenFaaS has a well-developed ecosystem with integrations for monitoring, logging, authentication, and more, making it easier to plug into existing tools and environments. Faasd, being a newer platform, may have a more limited ecosystem and integrations available.
Scalability and Performance: Due to its reliance on Kubernetes, OpenFaaS may offer better scalability and performance capabilities for larger workloads and enterprise-grade applications. Faasd, while still capable of scaling, may not have the same level of performance optimization as OpenFaaS.

In Summary, OpenFaaS and faasd differ in deployment method, resource consumption, management complexity, community support, availability of ecosystem, and scalability/performance capabilities.

Share your Stack

Help developers discover the tools you use. Get visibility for your team's tech choices and contribute to the community's knowledge.

View Docs

CLI (Node.js)

Manual

Detailed Comparison

OpenFaaS	faasd
Serverless Functions Made Simple for Docker and Kubernetes	It is the same OpenFaaS experience and ecosystem, but without Kubernetes. Functions and microservices can be deployed anywhere with reduced overheads whilst retaining the portability of containers and cloud-native tooling such as containerd and CNI.
-	A single Golang binary; Can be set-up and left alone to run your applications; Multi-arch, so works on Intel x86_64 and ARM out the box; Uses the same core components and ecosystem of OpenFaaS
Statistics
GitHub Stars 26.0K	GitHub Stars 3.2K
GitHub Forks 2.0K	GitHub Forks 230
Stacks 54	Stacks 0
Followers 234	Followers 6
Votes 17	Votes 0
Pros & Cons
Pros 5 Open source 4 Ease 3 Autoscaling 2 Documentation 2 Community	No community feedback yet
Integrations
Kubernetes Docker	DigitalOcean Linux Raspberry Pi macOS Windows

What are some alternatives to OpenFaaS, faasd?

AWS Lambda

AWS Lambda is a compute service that runs your code in response to events and automatically manages the underlying compute resources for you. You can use AWS Lambda to extend other AWS services with custom logic, or create your own back-end services that operate at AWS scale, performance, and security.

Azure Functions

Azure Functions is an event driven, compute-on-demand experience that extends the existing Azure application platform with capabilities to implement code triggered by events occurring in virtually any Azure or 3rd party service as well as on-premises systems.

Google Cloud Run

A managed compute platform that enables you to run stateless containers that are invocable via HTTP requests. It's serverless by abstracting away all infrastructure management.

Serverless

Build applications comprised of microservices that run in response to events, auto-scale for you, and only charge you when they run. This lowers the total cost of maintaining your apps, enabling you to build more logic, faster. The Framework uses new event-driven compute services, like AWS Lambda, Google CloudFunctions, and more.

Google Cloud Functions

Construct applications from bite-sized business logic billed to the nearest 100 milliseconds, only while your code is running

Knative

Knative provides a set of middleware components that are essential to build modern, source-centric, and container-based applications that can run anywhere: on premises, in the cloud, or even in a third-party data center

Nuclio

nuclio is portable across IoT devices, laptops, on-premises datacenters and cloud deployments, eliminating cloud lock-ins and enabling hybrid solutions.

Apache OpenWhisk

OpenWhisk is an open source serverless platform. It is enterprise grade and accessible to all developers thanks to its superior programming model and tooling. It powers IBM Cloud Functions, Adobe I/O Runtime, Naver, Nimbella among others.

Cloud Functions for Firebase

Cloud Functions for Firebase lets you create functions that are triggered by Firebase products, such as changes to data in the Realtime Database, uploads to Cloud Storage, new user sign ups via Authentication, and conversion events in Analytics.

AWS Batch

It enables developers, scientists, and engineers to easily and efficiently run hundreds of thousands of batch computing jobs on AWS. It dynamically provisions the optimal quantity and type of compute resources (e.g., CPU or memory optimized instances) based on the volume and specific resource requirements of the batch jobs submitted.

Related Comparisons

OpenFaaS vs faasd: What are the differences?

Deployment Method: OpenFaaS is a full-fledged platform that requires a Kubernetes cluster for its deployment. On the other hand, faasd is a lightweight alternative that can be deployed without Kubernetes, making it suitable for smaller environments or edge computing scenarios.
Resource Consumption: OpenFaaS typically requires more resources due to its dependency on Kubernetes, which can be resource-intensive. In contrast, faasd is more lightweight and consumes fewer resources, making it a more efficient option for scenarios where resource optimization is crucial.
Management Complexity: OpenFaaS offers more advanced features and customization options, but this comes at the cost of increased management complexity. Faasd, being a slimmed-down version, sacrifices some of these features to provide a simpler and more streamlined user experience.
Community Support: OpenFaaS has a larger and more established community compared to faasd, which translates to more resources, plugins, and community-created integrations. Faasd, being a newer and less widely adopted platform, may have a smaller community and fewer available resources.
Availability of Ecosystem: OpenFaaS has a well-developed ecosystem with integrations for monitoring, logging, authentication, and more, making it easier to plug into existing tools and environments. Faasd, being a newer platform, may have a more limited ecosystem and integrations available.
Scalability and Performance: Due to its reliance on Kubernetes, OpenFaaS may offer better scalability and performance capabilities for larger workloads and enterprise-grade applications. Faasd, while still capable of scaling, may not have the same level of performance optimization as OpenFaaS.

In Summary, OpenFaaS and faasd differ in deployment method, resource consumption, management complexity, community support, availability of ecosystem, and scalability/performance capabilities.

OpenFaaS vs faasd

Overview