3 months ago
- Amazon S3 Files maintains a one-to-one mapping between files and S3 objects, allowing direct S3 API access after asynchronous export, while ZeroFS uses an internal layout with LSM trees and packed segments, trading S3 visibility for compression, encryption, and cost efficiency.
- Cold access in S3 Files can trigger imports of metadata and small files into high-performance storage, with larger files read directly from S3; ZeroFS relies on local caching and prefetching to minimize S3 requests once the working set fits locally.
- S3 Files incurs additional costs for high-performance storage, file reads, and writes, which can be significant for resident data, whereas ZeroFS costs primarily involve object storage and requests, plus infrastructure for compute and cache.
- Durability and S3 visibility differ: S3 Files writes are durable immediately but export to S3 is asynchronous, while ZeroFS's fsync ensures data and metadata are written to object storage before returning success, with no separate export step.
- Rename operations in S3 Files involve copying and deleting S3 objects, potentially causing visibility delays, while ZeroFS only updates LSM directory entries without affecting object storage layout.