>3000 IOPS

If that's true, I wonder if this is a deliberate decision by cloud providers to push users towards microservice architectures with proprietary cloud storage like S3, so you can't do on-machine dbs even for simple servers.

▲

AnthonyMouse 8 hours ago | parent [-]

It's probably a combination of high density storage nodes getting I/O bound and SSDs having finite write endurance. Anything that improves the first problem costs them money to improve it and then makes the second problem worse, and the second one costs them money again, so why would they want to make the default something that costs then more twice if most people don't need it?

Instead they make the default "meager IOPS" and then charge more to the people who need more.

	▲	zamadatix 41 minutes ago \| parent [-]
		How often is the storage in cloud providers even local vs how often are laptops doing anything other than raw access to a single local disk with a basic FS? I remember my worked laptop's IOPS beating a single VM on the first SSD based SAN I deployed as well. Of course, the SAN scaled well beyond it with 1,000 VMs.