Zhivko Todorov
ALL CASE STUDIES

CASE 114 · RAMBLE · 2024

LAMBDAPOWER TUNINGCOMPUTECOST

Lambda memory tuned for cost, not for vibe.

A logistics tech company had 320 Lambda functions, all sized at 1024 MB because that was the company default someone had set in 2019. Some functions were under-utilised; some were starved. We ran AWS Lambda Power Tuning across the fleet and right-sized everything.

INDUSTRY

Logistics tech

DOMAIN

COST

DELIVERED

2024

STACK

AWS LAMBDA·LAMBDA POWER TUNING·CLOUDWATCH METRICS·STEP FUNCTIONS·TERRAFORM

RESULTS

What changed, by the numbers.

LAMBDA COMPUTE BILL

−41%

$12.4K → $7.3K / MONTH

FUNCTIONS RIGHT-SIZED

294 / 320

REMAINING WERE ALREADY OPTIMAL

p99 LATENCY

−14%

STARVED FUNCTIONS RECOVERED

COLD START IMPACT

NEUTRAL

CASE-BY-CASE

HOW IT WENT

The 1024 MB default was a 2019 decision made when most of the functions were small Node.js handlers. The fleet had grown — some had become Python data-heavy workers (under-memoried at 1024), some had stayed lightweight (over-memoried at 1024). Nobody had revisited.

Lambda Power Tuning ran each function against a Step Functions state machine that tried multiple memory configurations against representative payloads. The output was a recommended memory size per function balancing cost and duration. Most functions came in lower than 1024; a few came in much higher.

Compute bill dropped 41% across the fleet. p99 latency improved 14% on the previously-starved functions. Cold start impact was function-by-function — some improved with the larger memory (and faster CPU); some got slightly worse and stayed at the higher tier anyway.

READY WHEN YOU ARE

Let's get your AWS bill (and architecture) in order.

The discovery call is free. You walk away with at least one concrete idea — even if we never work together.

Or email directly →