41–50 of 122 posts
Can EFS be mounted from the Lambda environment?
Not at present. I would be interested in learning about use cases for this. Post here or find me online, as you wish.
To store small files (10 to 1000 KB) uploaded by users in a web app, what is the best tool, S3 or EFS?
We have N upload endpoints (as part of an autoscaling group), it's a bit of a pain to reaggregate the data since each server uploads its own .tgz to S3. I'm very happy to have EFS now! It makes scaling out our upload endpoints much simpler, as they can just dump their data into a common directory (which can still get archived and persisted to S3 later).
Pricing looks competitive https://aws.amazon.com/efs/pricing/ I wonder if this helps those who perceive S3 as vendor lock-in since it replicates a traditional file system.
On I/O front also EBS (gp2) and (st1) are several times cheaper.
So most of EFS advantages are in flexibility and sharing same file system across many instances. This may be great e.g. for sharing readonly binaries, but large scale data pipeline likely can be done much cheaper using different technologies.
Price is a bit high $0.3 GB / month vs. $0.1 GB / month for SSD EBS and even less for local storage. S3 is even cheaper $0.03 GB / month. So EFS is 10 times more expensive than S3. On I/O front also EBS (gp2) and (st1) are several times cheaper. So most of EFS advantages are in flexibility and sharing same file system across many instances. This may be great e.g. for sharing readonly binaries, but large scale data pi…
I'll have to double check my working out, but you're only paying for what you use, not provision, which is one big things.
Also, if you have > 3 machines working from the same dataset (ie docker image/video/large binaryblob) there is an instant saving, without factoring in provisioned vs useable space with EBS
but, your original point, as a 1-1 replacement of a properly sized EBS mount, is correct, its more expensive.
Price is a bit high $0.3 GB / month vs. $0.1 GB / month for SSD EBS and even less for local storage. S3 is even cheaper $0.03 GB / month. So EFS is 10 times more expensive than S3. On I/O front also EBS (gp2) and (st1) are several times cheaper. So most of EFS advantages are in flexibility and sharing same file system across many instances. This may be great e.g. for sharing readonly binaries, but large scale data pi…
This is really cool but also kind of a shame. I feel like it will encourage bad behavior. I can see people using this to deploy code by deploying onto the shared volume so that all their instances get an "instant update". Which is great when it works, but lord help you when EFS goes down and every app server you have is hung on a broken NFS connection.
The rational argument here is that if uptime is important to you, the solution is to utilize multiple regions, of which EFS is now in 4. You are using AWS because of the SLA and the assumption that when something goes wrong there are legions of technical folks trying to fix it as soon as possible.
Seems like no Windows support?
I ended up going with a shared volume, which works fine and performance is great, but I can only attach the volume to a single instance at a time which prevents me from running multiple instances. That said, it looks like there has been some performance tweaks to EFS so maybe it might be better this time.
This is really cool but also kind of a shame. I feel like it will encourage bad behavior. I can see people using this to deploy code by deploying onto the shared volume so that all their instances get an "instant update". Which is great when it works, but lord help you when EFS goes down and every app server you have is hung on a broken NFS connection.
I think that deploying onto a shared volume is exactly the workload that EFS encourages. That things will stop functioning can be said about any (AWS) technology. "Lord help you when (S3|RDS|SQS|etc.) goes down and every (thing) you have is hung up on a broken (thing) connection." The rational argument here is that if uptime is important to you, the solution is to utilize multiple regions, of which EFS is now in 4. Y…
With EFS, it's exposed as NFS, which hooks in much deeper. If it goes down, there isn't anything you can do to work around the problem, unless you start hacking your own file system kernel modules.