2 ms·
> 1) they probably don't have many duped objects to begin with That's crap reasoning. You have no way of knowing that. > 2) the system to de-dupe items would
by tpmx 6y ago
> 1) they probably don't have many duped objects to begin with
That's crap reasoning. You have no way of knowing that.
> 2) the system to de-dupe items would be complex, error prone, increase latency, and just not worth
Would it really be that complex? I kinda doubt that.
Read latencies wouldn't be affected - except being improved.
Write latencies - the deduplication can happen after the write has been confirmed, so no extra latency added.
Whether or not it's worth it - I think it's very hard to to estimate the deduplication factor. My guess is 1.5x. At that point it would save 33% storage. That would instanly make a whole lot of extra complexity worth it.
- weird-eye-issue 6y agoIt's like you are living in an alternate reality
- tpmx 6y ago...because? I dunno, I kinda think you might be out of your depth on this one, based on that response. Also: none of your few previous posts are tech-related. They're all about personal finance.
- weird-eye-issue 6y agoSo just to sum up your argument: You think 33% of objects in S3 are dupes and that removing those dupes would be S3's secret sauce?
- tpmx 6y agoCongratulations on being able to do 6th grade math.
- weird-eye-issue 6y agoYou're incredibly condescending and just full of incorrect assumptions. Done with this conversation
- tpmx 6y ago...