From 06a173e6d3453c3b863597d565398b9bec8e4573 Mon Sep 17 00:00:00 2001 From: Chris Lu Date: Sun, 12 Jul 2020 15:49:33 -0700 Subject: [PATCH] Updated Filer Benchmark (markdown) --- Filer-Benchmark.md | 2 +- 1 file changed, 1 insertion(+), 1 deletion(-) diff --git a/Filer-Benchmark.md b/Filer-Benchmark.md index ad99c08..649b86d 100644 --- a/Filer-Benchmark.md +++ b/Filer-Benchmark.md @@ -18,7 +18,7 @@ So not only it is fairly slow, but also it is expensive to use S3 as a key-value ## SeaweedFS with YCSB ### SeaweedFS Benefits -However, still, wouldn't it be nice that you can use an unlimited disk spaces to quickly store and access files? This way, only a file name is needed to store in the main databases, which costs more for storage? +The databases usually is much more expensive than SeaweedFS for the same capacity. It would be nice to to quickly store and access files with unlimited disk space, and only store a file name in the main database. SeaweedFS has no additional cost for API access, as long as you setup the SeaweedFS cluster. For example, it is a fixed monthly cost if running on EC2 instances. You do not need to worry about unmanageable API costs.