Digital Ocean Spaces Object Storage slow on retrieving objects

Posted December 18, 2017 9.2k views
Ubuntu 16.04Object Storage

We switched from our custom block storage solutions for object storage and we’re disappointed in the speed. Is there anyway we could retrieve objects asynchronously? Also some objects that are around 50 KB can take from 57 ms to 3 seconds… Will there be any improvements to have more consistent speeds?

Image of Chrome Dev. Tools

1 comment
  • I’m interested in seeing S3’s performance for the same files. To the OP, if you can do a test of retrieving similar files using S3 or another object storage service, that’ll be a great way to see if DO’s Spaces is worth using.

These answers are provided by our Community. If you find them useful, show some love by clicking the heart. If you run into issues leave a comment, or add your own answer to help others.

Submit an Answer
8 answers

I don’t know how to improve your situation but I will just add that I had very similar results. Just wildly inconsistent from quick to seconds.

It doesn’t feel designed for small files at all, I think the primary target is files that would take a minute or more, so the slow initial responses wouldn’t really be felt.

Same problem, with small image it still took a lot of time to load. Waiting for improvements !!

After seeing this, I’m very concerned.
I already use a CDN (CloudFlare), but the CDN has 120 datacenters, and each cache independently of each-other. That means that sometimes the latency of the origin matters, even with a cdn.

“That being said, Spaces is not meant to be used as a CDN and the performance won’t be comparable to one.”

Sure, it’s not a CDN, but it should be approximately as fast as having a droplet in the same datacenter serving the file off of a not-overloaded webserver.

Until that is the case, I’m going to proceed with severe caution.

This has been a month since the last update on this thread. Have the issues been resolved?

Update from DigitalOcean:

“Our Spaces team are aware of some possible performance bottlenecks and are working on addressing those.”
- Mike G., Platform Support Advocate

@eodjared Thanks for sharing this.

As Mike on our support team said, we are working on improving the performance and reliability of Spaces. That being said, Spaces is not meant to be used as a CDN and the performance won’t be comparable to one.

If you are trying to deliver content with low latency to web users, your best bet is to put Spaces behind a CDN as an origin.

Any paid CDN will work well with Spaces and here are a couple of links that describe how to set that up:

  • @johngannon

    During the beta testing phase, speeds were decent. I’m having to move our production back to our old solution. I’ve used other object storage solutions and never experienced the issues I’m having with you guys. It’s so frustrating, I expected and wanted you guys to have an awesome object storage alternative to the big S3.

    I would really like a blog post, update or something once you guys make some major improvements to the speeds. I will be staying away from using your object storage solution until then and will be wary with any new future products/solutions.

I recently started to implement Spaces for serving smaller files and have ridiculous latency exceeding +10sec. It seems like using spaces without a CDN is absolutely unusable.

It’s very unreliable. Certain files in my bucket have latencies >20 seconds where others are instant. A get on a 50 byte file takes 22 seconds just to connect in one case!