[wokwokwok]

I guess we’ll have to wait for a full write up of this, but it does seem like having multiple categories of object storage is pulls off hood tiered storage!

…rebranded with a different name, again.

Again complex, again no obvious way to query storage directly, again unclear performance characteristics, again no obvious reason to see why the networking costs make saving from it largely meaningless.

You have to admit it’s a bit of a hard sell without any comeback after literally just saying that people were just inventing new names for minor variations on tiered storage…

[wanshao]

I agree with your viewpoint. The crux of the matter is not whether to use tiered storage or not, but what trade-offs have been made in the specific storage architecture and what benefits have been gained. Here(https://github.com/AutoMQ/automq?tab=readme-ov-file#-automq-...) is a qualitative comparison chart of streaming systems including kafka/confluent/redpanda/warpstream/automq. This comparison chart does not have specific numerical comparisons, but purely based on their trade-offs at the storage level, I think this will be of some use to you.

[ryanworl]

We're still drafting our next post in this series, but the answer is actually very simple: two tiers of object storage do not have the same drawbacks as a combination of object storage and local disk. We wanted to explain that in this post too, but it would've been unreasonably long.

We've designed WarpStream to work extremely well on the slower, harder-to-use one first, and that is how 95+% of our workloads run in production. The tiered storage solutions from other streaming vendors do the opposite, where they were first designed for local SSDs and then bolted on object storage later.

The equivalent would be if we were pitching our support for an even slower, cheaper tier of object storage like AWS S3 Glacier.