4 ms·
You don't solve storage performance problems by moving to S3. They're looking at response times in the hundreds of milliseconds - it's common to see multiple se
by mprovost 10y ago
You don't solve storage performance problems by moving to S3. They're looking at response times in the hundreds of milliseconds - it's common to see multiple second response times from S3 (at least on AWS), sometimes they can take longer or just return an error.
- user5994461 10y ago> They're looking at response times in the hundreds of milliseconds No they don't. Read their slides, they are running on 52 seconds latency at times ;)
- mprovost 10y agoI was referring to where the article compares 100ms latency to 8 years. Typical "enterprise" storage solutions have sub-millisecond response times. I'm assuming the 52 seconds is how long it's taking to flush the entire journal which wouldn't be a single write. In any case, when someone is having a problem with their storage performance I just find it funny that everyone suggests S3 which has terrible performance.
- user5994461 10y agoTheir problem is not performance. Their problem is that they want high IOPS AND bandwidth AND storage size for a limited budget. There is no free lunch. S3 is simple and it can ingest the volume. Of course, the performances are not comparable to a local disk.