Again, I don't see any problems with "thousands of operations a second" if your single client is issuing parallel requests. Try any sequential workload instead.

> because of its minimal latency compared to raw object storage

That's not how it works. JuiceFS hits the object store for every file operation (except metadata, because it's backed by an external database). Latency cannot be lower, especially as JuiceFS doesn't seem to be implementing any buffering.

Above you also claim "allowing near instant synchronization and better performance", but near instant synchronization of what exactly? Metadata? Data blocks? And under what consistency model?

If you wish to run the benchmarks in bench/ on your setup and show better numbers, I'd happily update the JuiceFS benchmarks.