Amazon Elastic File System • Hacker News Board

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#211

Post by agrothberg » Fri, Apr 10, 2015, 5:43 PM UTC

How does this compare to just using AWS Storage Gateway (http://aws.amazon.com/storagegateway/) sitting in front of S3?

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#212

Post by buster » Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 6:52 AM UTC

dekhn wrote: post #203

buster wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

(me: Working in the Messaging Business for ISPs) Not sure how it would ever be technically possible for a networked filesystem to get even near directly attached storage. But, for sure, the typical carrier grade EMC or Netapp is MUCH slower then a good SAN. I'm talking about petabytes of very small (average maybe 20kB) files with lots of _random_ sync writes and reads. NFS has a lot of other benefits, but it surely i…

Petabytes of 20k files? I think you might want to use your filesystem more effectively.

Well, what would it help in terms of NFS? You'd still have to tell NFS to read 20kB. If it's 20kB from one big file or one 20kB file doesn't matter much. it's common to have one file per email and the usual filesystem has no problem with that.

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#213

Post by goldenkey » Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 2:32 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #204

goldenkey wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

heroku uses ec2 under the hood. heroku is heresy for any competent programmer. despite aws being packaged services at least both managed db and ec2 show you your actual servers and let you choose specs.

Heroku is used by a wide variety of competent programmers. Not everyone wants or needs to choose specs or see actual servers.

Willful ignorance?

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#214

Post by afrc » Sat, Apr 11, 2015, 4:09 PM UTC

Will this be available on Elastic Beanstalk?

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#215

Post by bosky101 » Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 5:22 AM UTC

joemccall86 wrote: post #34

shogun21 wrote: post #20

What's the advantage of this over S3?

I think they're meant to solve different problems. On one hand S3 is designed for (among other things) serving files over the web. EFS sounds like it's designed to be used as a filesystem multiple instances can write to (say for a high-availability setup).

this is the only real use-case IMO. Multiple instances being able to read/write to a single FS. Anything less would be a disappointment.

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#216

Post by bosky101 » Sun, Apr 19, 2015, 5:24 AM UTC

The best & key feature seems highly under-stated.

Until now, you could bind an ebs to only one instance.

Or had to use gluster / hdfs otherwise.

    Multiple Amazon EC2 instances can access an Amazon EFS file system
    at the same time, providing a common data source for
    workloads and applications running on more than one instance.

You effectively have a distributed filesystem now. this is great news.

Re: Amazon Elastic File System

#217

Post by JoelMaki » Wed, Apr 22, 2015, 8:50 PM UTC

WHY WAIT? Zetta.Net has been delivering enterprise grade capabilities, for more than 6 years, that Amazon/Google/MS are just now getting into. Don't wait for the pre-view, go to www.zetta.net and get all you can handle today. Customer's are moving in excess of 5TB in/out natively over the internet on a daily basis, with ability to do more given the available WAN connectivity. And add 100% Cloud Based DRaaS, and tomorrow is here today at Zetta.