AdministratorJanuary 3, 2024 at 12:59 pm
Thank you so much for your continued support in using our practice materials. We appreciate customers like you who are willing to speak up because it helps us understand and improve our products better.
I understand your points, and I’d like to clarify our stance. I believe that defining how ‘bad’ a throughput is should be relative to the presented requirements rather than taking it at face value. In context, while Cold HDD might not be ideal for high-performance scenarios, it may suffice for low-throughput needs. Regarding your claim of the poor usage of the term ‘throughput-oriented’; In discussing EBS volumes, we primarily focus on two performance-defining types: IOPS and throughput, each tailored for specific use cases. Our intention in using the term ‘throughput-oriented’ is to clearly indicate that we’re seeking a solution that prioritizes data transfer over large volumes. If someone asked me to pick a volume for reading hundreds of MBs per block, wouldn’t a throughput-oriented type be better than IOPS?
For this reason, I’m puzzled as to how Cold HDD would contradict the requirements of this scenario in any manner. As you’ve already said, Provisioned IOPS wouldn’t be ideal; it would be overkill for the job and more expensive. But what if there’s an alternative like Cold HDD that matches our workload’s demands and comes at a lower cost? Wouldn’t that be a more appropriate solution?