Cloud I/O Performance Comparisons

AFAIK AWS is faster (although the difference may not be noticeable outside microbenchmarks) and they are fully offloading networking (and EBS) onto the NIC.

I've also benchmarked GCP vs. AWS [0], and, for the tests that I ran, found that GCP outperformed AWS by a factor of 3:1. Specifically, a GCP instance n1-highcpu-8 with a 256GB pd-ssd disk, clocked in at 11,728 IOPS vs an AWS c4.xlarge with a 256GB gp2 disk, clocking in at 3,634 IOPS.To put that in context of the blog post, it means your setup can drastically affect your results. Using local NVMe disk, for example, yields excellent results at the expense of increased risk. Also, AWS'

Use SSD's on dedicated hardware. Don't use EC2 unless you really, really need to spin up tons of instances.

is the performance worse than aws?https://www.datadoghq.com/blog/aws-ebs-latency-and-iops-the-...

Nothing has been announced, but fwiw, I've been running benchmarks comparing the SSD block storage at Rackspace (http://www.rackspace.com/cloud/blockstorage/pricing/), as well as the all-SSD VMs from Digital Ocean (http://www.digitalocean.com/), and frankly, the CPU & I/O blow away EC2 so far. Compared to Google Compute Engine (<a href="https://cloud.goo

Hardware storage got really fast and cheap, but on the cloud it seems still super-slow and expensive. AWS's gp2 offers 3 IOPS/GB, and upgrading to something like io2 bleeds money really fast.

This question would be better asked to AWS support. Barring that, why not just test it with an few instance types and measure the results?

You are forgetting about the virtualization tax. Currently running on EC2 is slower than bare metal because of the XEN environment.

In my experience, you don’t. With tons of IOPS you need EBS or crazy expensive instances.Instead you use a cloud like google cloud where you can add NVMe SSDs to whatever instance type you need and configure custom RAM and CPU instead of picking from the super expensive AWS instances with no configurable options and almost always the wrong resource allocations for your workload.Source: testing my infrastructure that requires 60,000 iops on both google cloud and AWS and it being 1/4 th

We provide UpCloud as one of the cloud options for our SaaS database/metrics/messaging offering at Aiven.io and have been extremely happy with their disk i/o performance.Here's just a quick "hdparm -t" test I just ran on two random low-end nodes:upcloud-de-fra: 1028 MB in 3.00 seconds = 342.12 MB/secaws-us-west-1: 58 MB in 3.02 seconds = 19.17 MB/secI would of course recommend everyone to benchmark their actual workload on each cloud option