4 ms·
TTFB in S3 is 20-30ms around the 50th percentile. it can go much higher at p99 [1]. In any case, rotational latency for HDD drives is an order of magnitude lowe
by ozkatz 6y ago
TTFB in S3 is 20-30ms around the 50th percentile. it can go much higher at p99 [1]. In any case, rotational latency for HDD drives is an order of magnitude lower (typically 2-5ms for a seek operation).
S3 is great for higher throughput workloads where TTFB is amortized across larger downloads (this is why it's very common to use S3 as a "data lake" where larger columnar files are stored, usually at the order of hundreds of MiB).
I think it's an interesting project but perhaps explaining the use cases where this solution is beneficial would go a long way here.
[1] https://github.com/dvassallo/s3-benchmark https://github.com/dvassallo/s3-benchmark
- daviesliu 6y agoAgreed, thanks for putting these number together. JuiceFS was initial designed for big data workload in Cloud, and we have tens of paying customer use it in this use case. For NAS use case, the latency would be slower when case missed, but the overall IOPS could be higher. In the case of overwhelmed HDD, the latency could also go up to hundreds of milliseconds. We have pay lots of effort to improve the caching (in kernel and on disk) and prefetching. The overall performance is comparable to HDD over NFS.