> but I find it kind of off-putting for you to come in and immediately put down JuiceFS, especially with benchmark results that don't make a ton of sense, and are likely making apples-to-oranges comparisons with how JuiceFS works or mount options.

The benchmark suite is trivial and opensource [1].

Is performing benchmarks “putting down” these days?

If you believe that the benchmarks are unfair to juicefs for a reason or for another, please put up a PR with a better methodology or corrected numbers. I’d happily merge it.

EDIT: From your profile, it seems like you are running a VC backed competitor, would be fair to mention that…

[1] https://github.com/Barre/ZeroFS/tree/main/bench

> The benchmark suite is trivial and opensource.

The actual code being benchmarked is trivial and open-source, but I don't see the actual JuiceFS setup anywhere in the ZeroFS repository. This means the self-published results don't seem to be reproducible by anyone looking to externally validate the stated claims in more detail. Given the very large performance differences, I have a hard time believing it's an actual apples-to-apples production-quality setup. It seems much more likely that some simple tuning is needed to make them more comparable, in which case the takeaway may be that JuiceFS may have more fiddly configuration without well-rounded defaults, not that it's actually hundreds of times slower when properly tuned for the workload.

(That said, I'd love to be wrong and confidently discover that ZeroFS is indeed that much faster!)

Yes, I'm working in the space too. I think it's fine to do benchmarks, I don't think it's necessary to immediately post them any time a competitor comes up on HN.

I don't want to see the cloud storage sector turn as bitter as the cloud database sector.

I've previously looked through the benchmarking code, and I still have some serious concerns about the way that you're presenting things on your page.