Skip to content
New issue

Have a question about this project? Sign up for a free GitHub account to open an issue and contact its maintainers and the community.

By clicking “Sign up for GitHub”, you agree to our terms of service and privacy statement. We’ll occasionally send you account related emails.

Already on GitHub? Sign in to your account

Comments to "Reducing Cold Start Duration in Azure Functions" #7

Open
mikhailshilkov opened this Issue Mar 27, 2019 · 4 comments

Comments

Projects
None yet
3 participants
@mikhailshilkov
Copy link
Owner

mikhailshilkov commented Mar 27, 2019

Add your comment to Reducing Cold Start Duration in Azure Functions.
The comments will be displayed directly on the page.

I might edit the format of your comments to make them display nicely on the website, sorry for that!

@JasonBSteele

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

JasonBSteele commented Mar 27, 2019

Great work Mikhail, this stuff is important and your in depth analysis really shines a light on it - thank you.

@SteveALee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

SteveALee commented Mar 31, 2019

Thanks for this article. I must confess I'm still slightly confused by the various deployment options and which you are talking about .

When I previously used JS Function's on Windows (before Linux option) I found the node-modules folder had to be bundled to get a sensible cold start (there's a Microsoft repo for this somewhere).

I recently asked if this still applied or is perhaps different on Linux hosted functions as the slow Windows share seemed to be the problem - MicrosoftDocs/azure-docs#27181 The answer suggested I should use the package deployment which appears to be different to the old zip method in Kudu and is perhaps the same as you mention as zip - or might be different. Can you shed any light? Thanks

@mikhailshilkov

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link
Owner Author

mikhailshilkov commented Mar 31, 2019

@SteveALee I describe these 3 deployment methods in the main article.

Basically, Local Zip and External Zip are "Run from Package" deployment as described here. I believe that's what you got recommended. As I mentioned, in theory, it should have reduced the cold start, but it hasn't.

All my Node.js tests are on Windows. I actually believe you can't get Node.js Consumption on Linux as of today.

@SteveALee

This comment has been minimized.

Copy link

SteveALee commented Apr 1, 2019

@mikhailshilkov Thanks for clarifying and it's good to hear there aren't even more options. I guess your 'local' is WEBSITE_RUN_FROM_PACKAGE=1. My next concern was as you found out it was not optimal when using blob storage. I guess that as well as the extra time loading the zip it has to unpack at cold start and perhaps local only does it at deploy time. I really should chek th ecode though :)

Re Lunix, I'm sure I read an announcement of GA but now can't find it. However, this docs article specificaly mentions JS on Linux (which is only via nodejs AFAIK). I would assume available on consumption as that is the entire point of Functions. But to be honest, I don't care if Windows or Linux hosted, unless have native modules or bash npm scripts (which are a pain on Windows npm as it assumes cmd).

Update: Ah, Linux on consumption plan is a limited preview right now.

Repository owner deleted a comment from SteveALee Apr 2, 2019

Sign up for free to join this conversation on GitHub. Already have an account? Sign in to comment
You can’t perform that action at this time.