23 ms·
I thought the knock against backblaze is that (compared to Google or Amazon), uploading large amounts of data to it is very slow.
by iosDrone 8y ago
I thought the knock against backblaze is that (compared to Google or Amazon), uploading large amounts of data to it is very slow.
- namibj 8y agoIf you follow the best practices, that is not an issue.
- brianwski 8y agoDisclaimer: I work for Backblaze so I'm biased. > uploading large amounts of data to [Backblaze B2] is very slow All reports we (Backblaze) hear is that if you only use one thread, Backblaze B2 is slightly slower than S3 (like maybe 90% of the performance). If somebody has better numbers I would LOVE to see them! If clients use multiple threads, this issue goes entirely away. Using 500 threads can provably be 500 times as fast with Backblaze. This is because the Backblaze B2 architecture means there are no "choke points" like Amazon S3 has. Each thread will most likely be talking to a completely different "Backblaze Vault" maybe even in a completely separate Backblaze datacenter. Since they don't share any network switches or load balancers in common, there is no way they will slow down. But again, I would love any measurements or reproducible tests showing differences so we can chase them down and improve Backblaze B2!
- iosDrone 8y agoFair enough. This is just what I've heard second-hand, so I definitely don't have any data to back it up. I may try it out.