Clarification Request: Performance Benchmark Comparing to "AWS S3 Files"

[norpol]

Thank you for this innovative project, I've been postponing giving it a shot for a while - but it definitively sparks a lot of creative use case ideas!

It appears this wasn't unnoticed by AWS engineers and they've kinda implemented their own (partial) ZeroFS alternative.

It's called AWS S3 Files a native FS built on top of S3, to quote their pricing page:

As you work with specific files and directories through the file system, associated file metadata and contents are placed onto the file system's high-performance storage, in particular the portions that benefit from low-latency access. Many read operations bypass the file system entirely, with data served directly from your S3 bucket at standard S3 GET request rates with no S3 Files data charges. Your authoritative data always remains in your S3 bucket. When you write data, it is stored on the file system's highly durable high-performance storage and then synced back to your S3 bucket, keeping the file system and your S3 bucket consistent in both directions.

at 60$ per TB, writes can be expensive - although retrieval and long term cost might offset that. Compared to EFS pricing of course is much more predictable, in particular for later reading.

---

High-performance storage* $0.30/GB-mo
File reads from high-performance storage $0.03/GB
File reads directly from S3 bucket** FREE
File writes $0.06/GB