JuiceFS performs 175-227x slower than ZeroFS

[solracsf]

https://www.zerofs.net/zerofs-vs-juicefs

ZeroFS demonstrated 175-227x higher throughput for write operations while using only S3 for storage. JuiceFS, which requires both S3 and a separate metadata database, experienced high failure rates and significantly slower performance across all tests.

The tests also revealed differences in resource consumption: JuiceFS used 31x more storage space and generated up to 293x more S3 API calls for the same workload, which would impact operational costs in production environments.

Why such a HUGE difference? 🤔

[jiefenghuang]

ZeroFS by default write data to SlateDB first then uploads data asynchronously to S3, which is similar to how JuiceFS uses BadgerDB or a local Redis as metadata engine, plus writeback enabled to achieve a similar effect.
ZeroFS is a single-node architecture, while JuiceFS is more focused on a distributed file system that can scale horizontally.