3 ms·
Until you see technical details on any file, network or storage system you should always assume your writes (or data for that matter) are/is not safe. It's disa
by mrmondo 12y ago
Until you see technical details on any file, network or storage system you should always assume your writes (or data for that matter) are/is not safe. It's disappointing to see a product launched and hyped without the appropriate details required to make an informed decision around its use.
- tracker1 12y agoI think that you are correct, that some technical details are definitely needed for comparison... To me, this matches up against Azure Files (which is CIFS/SAMBA based)... Though, even if redundancy isn't a factor, it's nice that you can have network file shares without having to run your own dedicated instance in a given cloud. There are plenty of situations where having a common networked filesystem makes sense across a few servers for purposes of sharing some information, without it being physically on all of them... seeding static content, or user-uploaded files for example. It makes a given solution simpler to implement initially (though other considerations may take hold as a site/application grows). Typically Azure seems to perform better in terms of storage i/o over AWS. Though, if you are disk constrained in ways you can't reasonable scale horizontally, then you may be better off with something using local disks, and your own backup strategy on something cheaper (Linode DigitalOcean, Joyent, etc).