4 ms·
I'd be fascinated if you could share your insights from using this. Where does the pricing fall down? And is the latency/throughput a big improvement for this u
by kernelsanderz 3y ago
I'd be fascinated if you could share your insights from using this. Where does the pricing fall down? And is the latency/throughput a big improvement for this use case? (ie. externalizing a search index).
- fulmicoton 3y agoI ran the benchmark at Quickwit. I confirm it works as intended. I was extremely excited about this feature, primarily interested in the decreased GET request cost, and secondly the lower latency. Unfortunately the price model puts it in a place where it is the right technology only for some very rare places. In a nutshell the key thing you need to know is: - The storage is 6.4x expensive than classic S3. - The GET requests are 2x cheaper (with additional cost for large requests). - Your data is replicated within a single region. - latency is single digit ms. From a pure cost wise point of view, the realm where it makes sense to use it is there, but small, and often competes more with EBS than it competes with S3.
- kernelsanderz 3y agothank so much for sharing. Amazing product BTW!