4 ms·
I'm not seeing the usage here. What would need a (very very) performant temporary storage that you could not achieve with io volumes ?
by Manozco 8y ago
I'm not seeing the usage here. What would need a (very very) performant temporary storage that you could not achieve with io volumes ?
- plasma 8y agoNetwork disks really are terrible in comparison, even the super charged expensive ones (io volumes). Local SSD is just orders of magnitude faster if you need a fast place to put temporary (or replicated) data.
- pishpash 8y agoIt was a harebrained idea to not distinguish between local vs remote data needs. For a time Amazon pretended they could overcome physics.
- cobookman 8y agoAerospike
- Johnny555 8y agoio1 volumes are expensive and not nearly as performant as local nvme SSD's. io1's top out at 32K PIOPS per volume and a 32K PIOPS 225GB volume would cost around 2100/month. But an entire c5d.2xlarge with 225GB of local SSD will only cost around $283/month, and (based on i3 performance) will give you around 180K write IOPS.
- deleted 8y ago[deleted]
- Scarbutt 8y agocaches
- falsedan 8y agodocker layer caches jenkins workspaces
- Rafuino 8y agoRedis flash, memcached with its external storage shim, ScyllaDB, Aerospike, RocksDB, EVCache for Netflix perhaps...there's a bunch of em