Overview

Next.js, a React-based framework for building server-side rendered (SSR) applications, has gained immense popularity due to its performance and flexibility. However, selecting the right platform to deploy your Next.js application can significantly impact cost, scalability, and development experience.

There are numerous platform options for deploying a Next.js application, each with unique strengths and tradeoffs. To determine the most suitable platform for different scenarios, I investigated deploying a sample Next.js app on AWS Lambda, AWS ECS, AWS Amplify, and Vercel.

In this blog, I’ll share my findings, deployment experiences, tradeoffs for each platform, and what I learned.

Acceptance Criteria

The following criteria guided the investigation:

• Cost: Affordability for various levels of usage.
• Complexity: The effort and expertise required for setup and maintenance.
• Ease of Deployment: How straightforward it is to deploy Next.js.
• Performance: Response times, handling traffic spikes, and latency.
• Resilience: Fault tolerance and high availability.
• Scalability: The platform’s ability to handle growing traffic seamlessly.
• Securely Accessing Private Resources: Capability to integrate with internal APIs or databases.

AWS Lambda: A Serverless Approach
AWS Lambda offers a serverless computing service where you only pay for what you use—great for cost-conscious projects. There is no server management, no upfront costs, just code execution. However, deploying a Next.js application to Lambda isn’t straightforward due to Lambda’s 250MB size limit and cold start delays.

What I Learned
Next.js generates lots of files during execution, often exceeding the size limit. To address this, I used the AWS Lambda Web Adapter, which allowed me to proxy requests between the Lambda runtime and the web application without heavy code refactoring.

Deployment Process
Here’s the approach I took:

Install Tools:

• SAM CLI
• AWS CLI
• Docker Dockerize the App: Include the AWS Web Adapter in your Dockerfile (this is done by copying from awsguru public ecr).

`COPY --from=public.ecr.aws/awsguru/aws-lambda-adapter:0.8.4 /lambda-adapter /opt/extensions/lambda-adapter`

**Modify next.config.js: **Add standalone mode to the next.config.js file for compatibility

const nextConfig = {
    output: 'standalone',
}

module.exports = nextConfig

SAM: Finally sam was used to build, package and deploy the app on Lambda using sam build && sam deploy

For a more robust setup, CI/CD pipelines (e.g., GitHub Actions) can automate the deployment process.

Key Takeaways

• Cold Starts: While cold starts were present, the AWS Lambda Web Adapter helped mitigate their impact.
• File Size Limitations: Next.js’s generated files can exceed Lambda’s 250MB limit, requiring Dockerization or optimizations.

Trade-offs

• Pros: Cost-effective, serverless scaling, and pay-as-you-go pricing.
• Cons: Cold starts and limitations on file sizes.

AWS ECS: Containerized Application Management

Amazon Elastic Container Service (ECS) is a fully managed container orchestration service. It allows you to deploy, manage, and scale containerized applications, either using Amazon EC2 or AWS Fargate, a serverless compute engine for containers.

What I Learned
Deployment to ECS requires containerizing the app and defining infrastructure components like tasks, services, and scaling configurations. While more complex than Lambda, ECS offers powerful tools for handling high traffic.

Deployment Process

Containerize the App: Build a Docker image for the app and push it to Amazon ECR.

Define Infrastructure: Create a task definition, service, and autoscaling configurations.

Deploy: I used Terraform for the deployment, AWS CLI or Cloudformation can also be used to create and manage resources.

Key Takeaways

• Resilience and Scaling: ECS excels at handling traffic with proper autoscaling.

• Infrastructure Management: More effort is needed compared to serverless solutions like Lambda.

Trade-offs

• Pros: High performance, flexible scaling, and resilience.
• Cons: Higher complexity and cost compared to Lambda.

AWS Amplify

AWS Amplify is a fully managed service that simplifies front-end and mobile app development. It offers features like CI/CD pipelines, hosting, and backend services. Amplify is optimized for static and server-side rendered apps, making it an excellent choice for Next.js.

What I Learned

Amplify abstracts away the complexity of hosting Next.js applications. With just a few clicks, I was able to connect my repository, configure build settings, and deploy.

Deployment Process

• Connect Repository: Link the GitHub repository to Amplify.
• Select Branch: Choose the branch to deploy.
• Build and Deploy: Amplify detects the framework and runs the necessary build commands (yarn install, etc.).
• Manage Resources: Use the Amplify UI for custom domains, redirects, and more.

Key Takeaways

• Ease of Use: Amplify’s automated process was incredibly simple, making it perfect for developers without extensive AWS experience.

• Scaling: Amplify handled traffic spikes well, demonstrating good scalability.

Trade-offs

• Pros: Low complexity, high ease of use, and seamless CI/CD.
• Cons: Limited support for securely accessing private resources.

Vercel: Next.js’s Native Home

Vercel is the team behind Next.js, so it’s no surprise that their platform is designed to handle it flawlessly. With native SSR support, automatic scaling, and seamless integration, Vercel offers the easiest deployment experience for Next.js developers.

What I Learned
Deploying with Vercel was incredibly simple. I connected my GitHub repository, clicked Deploy, and in less than 5 minutes, my app was live on a .vercel.app domain.

Deployment Process

• Sign Up and Connect Repository: Create a Vercel account and link your GitHub repository.
• Deploy the App: Click Deploy, and Vercel automatically builds and deploys the app.
• Access the App: The app will be available on a .vercel.app domain, which can be customized.

Key Takeaways

• Optimal Performance: Vercel’s integration with Next.js made it the fastest and easiest deployment platform.
• Cold Starts: Some initial delays were observed, likely due to serverless function cold starts.

Trade-offs

• Pros: Extremely easy to use, high performance, and rich features.
• Cons: Higher cost for advanced features and limited private resource access on lower-tier plans.

Conclusion

Through this investigation, I learned that each platform has its unique strengths and trade-offs. Ultimately, the best platform depends on your application’s needs, team expertise, and budget. For my use case, ECS was the best fit as it allowed more control over the infrastructure and enabled secure access to backend services using VPC.