Ultimately, we should be able to match the performance of FSx for Lustre. With a scale-out protocol (mirroring the Lustre protocol), it's relatively simple to achieve scaleable throughput and IOPS out to the level of 100s of GiB/s and millions of IOPS (we aren't doing this today, but I anticipate being here within a month or two).
Functionally, we're not running DRTs like Lustre does in order to synchronize from S3. We will support the ability to pre-load the cache (like a DRT), for customers who can't handle the lazy-loading latency, but unlike Lustre, we can't run out of capacity in the hot tier, and we will automatically delete data from the hot tier when it's not in use. I know that DRT management can be complex for customers.
Functionally, we're not running DRTs like Lustre does in order to synchronize from S3. We will support the ability to pre-load the cache (like a DRT), for customers who can't handle the lazy-loading latency, but unlike Lustre, we can't run out of capacity in the hot tier, and we will automatically delete data from the hot tier when it's not in use. I know that DRT management can be complex for customers.