Comparison of FaaS Orchestration Systems

TL;DR

This paper compares major FaaS orchestration systems by analyzing their architectures, programming models, and runtime performance through experiments, providing insights into their strengths and limitations.

Contribution

It offers a comprehensive comparison of Amazon Step Functions, Azure Durable Functions, and IBM Composer using a unified evaluation framework.

Findings

Different architectures impact orchestration efficiency

Runtime overhead varies across systems and workflow types

Support for parallel execution differs among platforms

Abstract

Since the appearance of Amazon Lambda in 2014, all major cloud providers have embraced the Function as a Service (FaaS) model, because of its enormous potential for a wide variety of applications. As expected (and also desired), the competition is fierce in the serverless world, and includes aspects such as the run-time support for the orchestration of serverless functions. In this regard, the three major production services are currently Amazon Step Functions (December 2016), Azure Durable Functions (June 2017), and IBM Composer (October 2017), still young and experimental projects with a long way ahead. In this article, we will compare and analyze these three serverless orchestration systems under a common evaluation framework. We will study their architectures, programming and billing models, and their effective support for parallel execution, among others. Through a series of experiments, we will also evaluate the run-time overhead of the different infrastructures for different types of workflows.