Storage Snapshot / Fork

Snapshot creation and fork latency across object storage providers — how fast can a provider branch your bucket?

Powered byNamespace· 4 vCPU / 16GB RAM· Northern Virginia, US
Last run: August 28

Performance Over Time

Composite Score

Detailed Metrics

Provider
Score
Snapshot (med)
Fork (snap) (med)
Fork (live) (med)
First Read (med)
Success
Tigris99.80.07s0.10s0.18s0.15s100%
Tensorlake99.80.04s0.18s0.22s0.09s100%
Azure Blob98.90.63s0.64s1.23s0.03s100%
Archil0.00.00s0.00s0.00s0.00s0%
AWS S30.00.00s0.00s0.00s0.00s0%
Mosaic0.00.00s0.00s0.00s0.00s0%

Want to see a provider added?

Let us know on X

Methodology

What We Measure

Each iteration seeds a small dataset (10 objects × 1 MB = 10 MB) into the provider bucket, then times four operations: snapshot create, fork from snapshot, fork from live, and a first object read from the fork to confirm time-to-usable.

Every created resource (objects, snapshot, forks) is torn down in a finally block so a failure mid-iteration does not leak storage or siblings.

Each provider runs 100 iterations per benchmark run. Benchmarks run weekly via GitHub Actions and results are committed to the public benchmarks repo.

How We Score

The Composite Score (0–100, higher is better) scores each latency metric against a 60-second ceiling: 100 × (1 − value / 60,000ms), weighted as follows, then multiplied by success rate.

  • Snapshot create median: 40%
  • Fork (from snapshot) median: 35%
  • Fork (from live) median: 15%
  • First read median: 10%

Providers with native zero-copy semantics (e.g. Tigris) create snapshots and forks in near-constant time. Copy-based emulation (S3, R2, Azure) scales with object count and total bytes, which becomes visible at larger dataset sizes.

PartnersLatitude