[CobrastanJorji]

> When we moved S3 to a strong consistency model, the customer reception was stronger than any of us expected.

This feels like one of those Apple-like stories about inventing and discovering an amazing, brand new feature that delighted customers but not mentioning the motivating factor of the competing products that already had it. A more honest sentence might have been "After years of customers complaining that the other major cloud storage providers had strong consistency models, customers were relieved when we finally joined the party."

[progbits]

I mainly use GCP but keep hearing how great AWS is in comparison.

Imagine my surprise when porting some GCS code to S3 last year and realizing there is no way to get consistency guarantees without external lock service.

[thiht]

> I mainly use GCP but keep hearing how great AWS is in comparison.

Where do you keep hearing this?

Having used both, AWS is trash in comparison. It's way to complicated to do anything simple. At work I wish we could migrate to GCP (or just something that's not AWS, really).

[progbits]

All my coworkers who mainly used AWS before say that. I agree with you, but my AWS experience is quite limited, so what do I know.

But I feel like being used to something + grass being greener on other side both play a big role in these opinions.

[klysm]

Distributed locks are a lie

[snoman]

That would surprise me too considering read-after-write consistency came to S3 like 5 years ago?

[jchw]

IIRC (it has been a while) the difference is that on Amazon it can only be consistent within a region whereas on GCS I believe even multi-region buckets offer strong consistency.

[snoman]

Ahh. That makes sense!

[antonvs]

You get this same pattern with a lot of stories about software. Features are often implemented in a way that’s simple for the developers, but not really a great fit for what’s actually needed. Then typically some story is given to justify why the resulting limitations or usability issues are actually a good thing.