I was referring to where the article compares 100ms latency to 8 years. Typical "enterprise" storage solutions have sub-millisecond response times. I'm assuming the 52 seconds is how long it's taking to flush the entire journal which wouldn't be a single write. In any case, when someone is having a problem with their storage performance I just find it funny that everyone suggests S3 which has terrible performance.

Their problem is not performance. Their problem is that they want high IOPS AND bandwidth AND storage size for a limited budget. There is no free lunch.

S3 is simple and it can ingest the volume. Of course, the performances are not comparable to a local disk.