Hacker News Reader

S3 latency and availability are many (3, 4, 5?) orders of magnitude worse than those other things.

In other news, smart cars and supercars have comparable leg room, and are therefore interchangeable, depending on your use case.

View on HN

Latency I can see. I find it hard to believe S3 has a lower availability than a sata drive. Given that S3 is replicated.

S3 maybe has better availability. Your DSL/fiber and router, that are on the critical path, definitely not.

I was speaking in the context of the cloud. If you are using S3, I presume you are using AWS EC2 or other services. Otherwise network egress costs dwarf everything else for most use cases. Except maybe as a repo of database backups.

Depends on what you mean by availability. AWS S3 does return 500 errors from time to time and you are supposed to retry. There are also opaque rate limiting. These are mostly hidden from you if you use the AWS sdk but still is something to be aware of if you are using it in scale.

And we haven't even started to talk about eventual consistency.

I am the author of goofys (which exposes s3 like a filesystem) so obviously I believe this can work, but you do need to understand the tradeoffs (or you use goofys and hope that the tradeoffs I've made are correct :-P)

Reply on news.ycombinator.com