Live data from Hacker News

S3 Files

allthingsdistributed.com

121–128 of 128 posts

Re: S3 Files

#121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reads from s3 via an s3 endpoint inside a vpc to an interface inside of that vpc is not billed.

S3 GET operations are billed anyway. Traffic may be free, but not the operations.

S3 GET requests have negligible cost, at $0.0004/1000 requests. Upload requests are $0.005/1000, which is also negligible.

Re: S3 Files

#122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Reads from s3 via an s3 endpoint inside a vpc to an interface inside of that vpc is not billed.

S3 GET operations are billed anyway. Traffic may be free, but not the operations.

Ok, but to be clear you said all outgoing traffic is charged. The API call price is something else, it's not part of the outgoing traffic.

Re: S3 Files

#123
post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not that different than CoW filesystems - there is no rule that files must map 1:1 to objects; you can (transparently) divide a file into smaller chunks to enable more fine grained edits.

The most obvious approach seems to implement device blocks as S3 objects and use any existing file system on top of it.

S3 is notoriously miserable with small objects.

Re: S3 Files

#124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

S3 GET operations are billed anyway. Traffic may be free, but not the operations.

Ok, but to be clear you said all outgoing traffic is charged. The API call price is something else, it's not part of the outgoing traffic.

Yes, and stand by it: > All outgoing traffic from AWS is charged no matter what.

Your example with VPC endpoints does not leave AWS.

Sorry for the confusion you probably thought about outgoing from S3, but I mean outgoing from AWS.

Re: S3 Files

#125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

S3 GET operations are billed anyway. Traffic may be free, but not the operations.

S3 GET requests have negligible cost, at $0.0004/1000 requests. Upload requests are $0.005/1000, which is also negligible.

I object, we once paid $40k for that "negligible cost".

Re: S3 Files

#126
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can also use something like JuiceFS to make using S3 as a shared filesystem more sane, but you're moving all the metadata to a shared database.

Or ZeroFS which doesn’t require a 3rd party database, just a s3 bucket! https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS

ZeroFS isn't a shared redundant filesystem.

Re: S3 Files

#127
post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am curious about this use case How do you see it helping with DuckLake?

Latency, predicate pushdown. Pre-compaction the recent data can be in small files, and the delete markers will also be in small files. This will bring down fetch times, while ducklake may have many of the larger blocks in memory or disk cache already. Reading block headers for filtering is lots of small ranges, this could speed it up by 10x.

For files up to 100kB of size, this should effectively be really close to the same price as S3 when writing (didn't check reading so much, but the writes/PUT is always much more expensive than read/GET)

Would be really useful pre-compaction and to deal with small files issue without latency penalties

Re: S3 Files

#128
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or ZeroFS which doesn’t require a 3rd party database, just a s3 bucket! https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS

ZeroFS isn't a shared redundant filesystem.

It's definitely shared, and can be redundant.
Post reply on HN