Hacker News Reader

> (...) leverage the lower cost and higher throughput of object storage like S3 (...)

What do you mean by "lower cost (...) of object storage like S3"? Isn't S3 terribly expensive? I recall S3 costs around 10$/month per TB you park there without doing anything to it, and AWS charges basically for everything you do to those objects over a network.

View on HN

Not to mention that apparently we're supposed to compare that to storing on your local harddisk. Isn't local storage always far higher throughput than accessing something across the internet? Being able to store and access stuff on the internet as if it's local is a great idea, but the way they sell it is unconvincing and sounds like they don't really understand what they're talking about.

Hi author here, sorry I missed this post. The performance benchmarks and cost comparisons are for comparing S3 vs EBS (ext4 formatted), EFS, FSx Lustre and others within the same datacenter (i.e. LAN use case rather than WAN use case). That means if you have an EC2 instance running in, say AWS Ohio, and are comparing those storage options also within AWS Ohio, then cunoFS is both cheaper and higher throughput than those other options. It's a different story over WAN. In that case, your own local NVMe storage is going to be cheaper and generally faster that remote storage over a WAN. But that local NVMe storage (on say your solo laptop) isn't going to have anywhere near the Enterprise-grade redundancy, availability and scalability that AWS S3/Azure Blob/Storj/Wasabi/etc has.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com