Feeding data to 1000 CPUs – comparison of S3, Google, Azure storage

Re:Feeding data to 1000 CPUs – comparison of S3, Google, Azu... by dwelch2344 on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @05:13PM (#10846465)

I'd be interested to see how AWS' Elastic File System (EFS) compares (though I'd imagine it's not great, given it's mounted via NFS)

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Feeding data to 1000 CPUs – comparison of S3, Google, Azu... by jaytaylor on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @05:50PM (#10846724)

No hard numbers for you, but FWIW I ran tests about 4 months ago and the performance was /very/ low compared to what is achievable compared to S3 and even normal NAS.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Feeding data to 1000 CPUs – comparison of S3, Google, Azu... by zbjornson on Tuesday January 05, 2016 @05:22PM (#10846535)

I've been on the list to get into their preview program for a while so I can benchmark it, actually! Part 3 of the blog post is going to include some NFS stuff either way.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Feeding data to 1000 CPUs – comparison of S3, Google, Azu... by acdha on Wednesday January 06, 2016 @10:27AM (#10850957)

When you do, it would be really useful to include the classic fio/bonnie/etc. stuff to break down performance by the type of operation (e.g. file creation / deletion, streaming read/write, random read/write) and block size.

EFS supports NFSv4 so it should avoid being as routinely limited by server round-trip latency as NFSv3 tends to be but it'd be nice to see how well that works in practice.

[ Parent | on HN ]