Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
aws.typepad.com
Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
1–10 of 16 posts
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#2Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns.
It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#3Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
They are all for 1/4 of the year, it's just that the other segments are for Q4 and that segment is for Q1.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#4Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
I think the Q4 columns are simply stating "at the end of Q4 this is what our number was"
Because Q4 of 2012 has not happened yet, we can't mark a number on the graph, so Q1 which has finished is the best we can do for this year.
That's my understanding of it.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#5Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
I think the Q4 columns are simply stating "at the end of Q4 this is what our number was" Because Q4 of 2012 has not happened yet, we can't mark a number on the graph, so Q1 which has finished is the best we can do for this year. That's my understanding of it.
I understand _why_ they did it. But it's still wrong.
The best option would be for them to put in the quarterly numbers for all years, then all bars would represent an equal amount of time.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#6Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
They are all for 1/4 of the year, it's just that the other segments are for Q4 and that segment is for Q1.
Not exactly. They are all labeled with a quarter. But the rest of them are spaced a year apart. The last bar is visually skewed because it's not consistent with the X-axis unit established by the previous bars.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#7Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
They are all for 1/4 of the year, it's just that the other segments are for Q4 and that segment is for Q1.
No from one bar to the next for the previous years, the gap is 1 year (ie, Q4 2010, Q4 2011 -> 1 year), but from the second last bar to the last bar, the gap is 1 quarter (Q4 2011, Q1 2012 -> 1 quarter)
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#8Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
I will work on this tomorrow. Appreciate all of the feedback.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#9Note that the last column is for 1/4 of a year, not a full year like the other columns. It initially looked like growth was slowing down. Amazon: You should fix that graph, it makes you look bad.
I will work on this tomorrow. Appreciate all of the feedback.
Hopefully you'll also get some feedback on the content, not just the presentation :)
Although the exponential growth is amazing to think about, so the graph is pretty important.
Re: Amazon S3 - 905 Billion Objects and 650,000 Requests/Second
#10Looks like my prediction on S3 hitting a trillion objects in Q2 is about right: http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=2784320