Papers › Comparison of FaaS Orchestration Systems

Comparison of FaaS Orchestration Systems

30 Jul 2018arXiv:1807.11248links table onlyarchive 2025-07-28

Pedro García López, Marc Sánchez-Artigas, Gerard París, Daniel Barcelona Pons, Álvaro Ruiz Ollobarren, David Arroyo Pinto

The archive published only this paper's code-link row. Authors, date and abstract are from arXiv's metadata (CC0), read from the Kaggle arXiv metadata snapshot of 2026-09-12 where its title matched the archive's; the title is the archive's.

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.

PaperPDFCode

Code

Repository list and official/mentioned flags are the archive's, frozen 2025-07-28. Reachability, where shown, is from one Syntology probe window (2026-09-16 to 2026-09-18); repositories not probed show nothing. GitHub stars are not tracked.

Code Syntology ran Syntology

Not run by Syntology. Nothing on this page verifies that the listed code works.

Results from the paper archive 2025-07-28

No leaderboard rows for this paper in the archive.

Report a problem or propose a change · a person checks every report against the paper or source before anything changes; decisions are listed on /corrections