Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Reviews

I have worked with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) in the past. I was working for Amazon until earlier this year, and I used it during that time. However, I moved off of Amazon and am no longer using it now.

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is an excellent service that provides a serverless solution with unlimited storage and easy configuration. Someone looking for a straightforward network file system to be utilized in a cloud environment will find Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) within AWS to be the ideal choice.

The major advantage of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is that it was easy to configure in the earlier days, allowing you to set it up within three clicks. Regarding performance, there are some best practices that you need to follow to get the most out of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). You can make improvements at the operating system level by defining the right NFS options, such as read size and write size. Additionally, you should ensure that the instances you are utilizing in an AWS environment are within the same availability zone where you have your Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) setup. This approach will decrease latency and provide a performance boost to your environment.

When I started working with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), I faced a few issues. One issue was around the number of IOPS limitation. Initially, the number of IOPS that could be performed on the Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) file system was quite low. Later on, it has been increased, and now I believe it is at a level where only very specific workloads might not perform optimally, but otherwise everything should work smoothly.

By the time I was there, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) was supporting NFS version 4.1, not 4.2. Currently, it is supported up to NFS 4.1. A notable limitation of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is that it does not support Windows. If your workload is running on a Linux operating system and you do not want to manage it or even understand NFS at all, you should still be able to use it fairly quickly.

There are scenarios where Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) might not work effectively. For example, database-type workloads do not run properly on Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) because at the end of the day, it is a network file system and requests must travel from one place to another and then return. This process takes time, so if you are running a database-type workload, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) might not be the right approach, and you would need to look elsewhere.

When comparing Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) to NetApp ONTAP, I believe ONTAP has an edge. For example, if you want to take a backup, an ONTAP system will complete it within a few seconds. In contrast, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) requires a full copy, which might take a long time to back up. Additionally, ONTAP, being a leader in this space, offers many other enterprise-class features that are not yet available in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System).

One difference is the backup capability that I just mentioned. Another difference is performance. NFS within ONTAP performs better than Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). ONTAP has supported Windows as well, so if you want to use NFS on Windows, NetApp officially supports that. Performance-wise, ONTAP is superior when compared to Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). Additionally, there are other integrations, such as malware protection or ransomware attack protection, which come built-in within ONTAP.

If your workload does not require all the features available in ONTAP, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is still a viable option. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is cheaper compared to ONTAP, and you do not have to define a size in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). That is one advantage it has. Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) does not have any maintenance requirements, so all the maintenance that happens in the background is transparent to you. Users do not have to worry about any maintenance or define any maintenance windows. For simple use cases, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) would make sense. However, if a customer needs features such as within-second snapshots, anti-virus integration, or ransomware protection, ONTAP would still be the better choice.

There are different approaches you can utilize if your use case involves multi-tenancy. You can define access points based on each of your tenants and utilize those access points as part of your multi-tenancy workload.

Access points are basically integrated with IAM. For encryption, you can utilize KMS as a service for encrypting your file system at rest. One of the other important features I would mention is the archive class. Initially, this was not supported with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), but now it has been added. If you have cold data in your Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) file system, you do not have to pay for it at full price. The idea is to move that data to the archive tier so that you pay less instead of paying for it under the standard class.

I have utilized AWS DataSync with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) as well. If you are looking to migrate your workload from on-premise to AWS and you want to use a NAS operating system or network attached storage at the back end, and your workload is Linux only, then Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is the best choice. I would rate this product a 9 out of 10.

Amazon EFS is primarily used as a shared file storage system for NAS devices. I primarily use it when I have a linked server and require a shared file storage system. Data management is enhanced by allowing shared data across servers within the same network. I use EFS for data-heavy applications, depending on the cost.

The most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability. It's really easy to configure EFS by just creating it and running a command to directly configure it with my servers. It supports unlimited use, and charges are applied based on the file usage at the end of the month. The solution offers reduced downtime and increased durability through its auto-scaling features.

EFS could be improved by including a one-click setup. Currently, after creating EFS, it needs to be integrated with servers manually. It would be easier if AWS could handle these parts. Additionally, enabling AI-driven or automatic features would be beneficial for new or nontechnical users.

I have used it for almost four years.

Amazon EFS is extremely stable, as it is managed by AWS. It is crucial for me, having multipurpose applications that require high stability.

Amazon EFS has significantly improved operations by decreasing downtime and increasing durability. Its auto-scaling feature is a crucial point, providing high scalability that I would rate at ten out of ten.

The initial setup for EFS is straightforward with just one command. If users are familiar with Linux commands, it is rated as ten out of ten in terms of ease. However, complete beginners might find it slightly challenging.

The main challenge with EFS is its cost, which is slightly higher compared to EBS or S3. For one GB or ten GB of data, S3 is much cheaper. EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage.

For users evaluating EFS, it's better to use S3 or EBS volumes if they don't have specific use cases requiring EFS. Medium or small enterprises may not need EFS. 

Overall, I rate EFS as eight out of ten, mainly due to cost considerations.

The main use cases for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) are that it needs to be used by Linux systems for shared data when some data needs to be shared over the network.

The primary benefit of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is its utilization. The behavior and features it provides make it suitable when we need to use a Linux-based file share over the network. Alternatively, we have a NetApp UNIX file system, but we haven't explored the NetApp ONTAP much because everything depends on the volume we need to use. If we had a good volume, we might have explored the FS ONTAP as well, considering the performance and costing.

The features of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) that I find most useful are its backup enablement and auto-scaling capabilities.

The automatic scaling functionality has helped manage fluctuating workloads because when we have 10 gigs of data and a customer needs to put even 10 times the data, no action is required as it will grow automatically.

The solution is very easy to set up.

What should be improved in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is the costing, as it should be reduced, but that depends on Amazon. To be frank, I don't have much comparison as we don't have a good volume. We have very little volume on the EFS (Elastic File System), which is why I couldn't do much cost comparison. Currently, I'm not aware of the exact costing, but previously I found that the costing was a bit high.

I have been working with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) for more than five years.

Regarding deployment for Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), we don't need to deploy it because it's a managed service.

I have not faced many challenges with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), as it operates fine without many issues.

We are not using the Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Lifecycle Management feature to transition because we have very little volume.

The EFS (Elastic File System) multi-tenant architecture facilitates the management performance of large-scale applications, but it is a bit costly, so we are using it very minimally, and the volume is less.

I sometimes interact with the Amazon support team if there are any issues.

The way they provide support is good, and I would rate it at eight out of ten.

Positive

Before working with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), we were using Amazon as a solution throughout the globe, so we didn't have much choice to use or compare it with someone else.

We are the end user, and we are majorly in technical support while the business is the end user.

We don't need to purchase it; we are just using it and paying Amazon as per the utilization. We make direct payments to Amazon based on our usage.

Regarding additional features, I think the current features are sufficient because the same features are provided by FSx ONTAP, which might be better, but we haven't used it much yet. We can try to explore this in the future, but we don't have much utilization for a UNIX-based file share over the network.

If someone wants to use Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), it's good to compare it with FSx ONTAP for UNIX to evaluate the costing, performance, pricing, and accessibility, as this can be helpful.

We are not using Elastic Disaster Recovery at present.

Concerning AWS Identity and Access Management, we are not integrating as we majorly use it over the network layer, the TCP layer, and the private network.

Regarding the performance differences between General Purpose and Max I/O modes in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), we are using General Purpose for general use cases, and it works sufficiently.

I rate Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) seven out of ten.

Many useful power features describe our main use cases for this tool, such as email security and securing incoming data, so everything is covered.

We use cloud storage security, which is a virus scanner for their infrastructure, as a new addition. Other than that, it focuses on serverless features, such as Lambda and Aurora SQL server databases.

CSS cloud storage security, which is offered by AWS, is integrated into our system. It functions as a virus scanner that monitors whenever any incoming file arrives.

The AWS service is excellent security-wise, and I have seen some other features besides security, such as automatic scaling that helped us significantly. Regarding integration, it provides us with the benefit that our data is kept within our account only.

We currently do not seek out any other improvements because we built this architecture for our demand, so if something comes up, we will have to evaluate it.

I have been working with this cloud storage for one year.

The implementation took approximately 2 to 3 days for initial setup. I cannot give an exact time for each project since I handle multiple projects simultaneously.

We did not encounter any complaints regarding stability or downtimes. We only experienced some technical issues at the beginning when starting the service, which was slow, but we resolved it.

During certain situations, we contacted AWS since we have a paid account with 24-hour support, reaching out for specific issues such as email tracking.

Their response was not prompt, and it took them a while to figure out solutions. While the time to respond was good, the time to resolve was not optimal, as it took more than a week.

Neutral

There are huge money savings, as we can save more than half of our costs.

We currently consider Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) solutions only because they are an approved vendor amidst our vendor risk assessment process, and taking something in requires internal stakeholders' sign off.

AWS would be more cost-effective than some competition for our needs.

Our project is up and running without any issues, so after that point, we have not needed to make many adjustments.

We deploy Lambda, which means we do not have servers. We run our functions on Lambda and use serverless mode deployment method.

AWS Lambda is used for our cloud storage. We do not use EC2 now, as we are using serverless mode database and Lambda only due to on-demand costing. We moved away from EC2 because it requires regular payments.

The performance of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is the same as when you deploy something to a physical server. You just run the engine when needed; otherwise, it will not run.

Separate tools come in, and it is secured at the enterprise level. For the moment, CodePipeline, which is built in AWS, is sufficient.

We use Jira for lifecycle management, along with Bitbucket and CodePipeline, integrating all our release pipelines.

Our primary use case for the product involves mounting it with our EC2 instances for scalable storage needs. We utilize it in an environment that requires automated scaling and cost-effective storage management.

The solution has significantly improved our organization by reducing costs, particularly due to its hibernation mode. The documents not frequently accessed are moved into hibernation mode, which incurs lower storage costs.

There are two of the most valuable features of the product. First, the ease of mounting the solution with our EC2 instances simplifies the integration process. Second, the automatic scaling based on storage needs has saved us from manually managing storage limits, resulting in approximately a 20-30% reduction in storage costs.

The platform's connectivity could be improved to be more comparable to S3 buckets, which offer better API availability. 

I have been using Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) for the past two years.

The product is very stable. We have been using it for the past two years without any issues.

The platform is highly scalable, supporting around 6,00,000 to 7,00,000 users. It is one of the most scalable solutions provided by AWS.

I have not specifically used AWS technical support for this solution, but my experience with their support for other services has been responsive, though the cost is quite high.

Depending on the use case, I have to choose between EFS and S3, as S3 has certain advantages in specific scenarios.

The setup was straightforward, though there might be a learning curve of about two days, which is manageable.

The product charges are based on the amount of data stored, with different hot and cold storage costs. Cold storage is inexpensive but slower to access.

EFS can also be mounted to other AWS services like Lambda, making it versatile and cost-effective compared to other solutions like S3. 

Additionally, I have not faced any downtime issues; it has been consistently reliable. 

If your business is in its early stages and doesn't require high scalability, you might avoid using this solution initially. However, shifting to it becomes more sensible as your business grows and you require more reliable and cost-effective storage.

I rate it a ten out of ten. 

For application deployment, we leverage a cluster of servers that require access to common storage. Instead of storing files locally, we utilize Amazon EFS, which allows shared access among the servers. This ensures that if one server fails, others can maintain access and continue processing.

Having Amazon EFS as part of AWS simplifies integration, allowing us to manage permissions and encryption effectively. This integration provides a seamless experience within the AWS ecosystem, making deployment more efficient.

Amazon EFS offers the flexibility of scaling as needed without requiring pre-provisioned storage. I appreciate that it only charges for actual usage, allowing seamless scaling from one gigabyte to one terabyte without additional requirements. 

Its ease of integration with other AWS services enhances our infrastructure, while the shared storage access improves reliability and processing continuity for our applications.

I have not encountered any specific areas for improvement. Whenever I use this service, it performs as expected without significant issues.

I have been using Amazon EFS for more than four years.

While I experienced an EFS mount dropping, it was related to server issues rather than EFS itself. This is a common occurrence with any NFS or shared storage system.

There have been no scalability issues. Amazon EFS scales automatically, meeting our storage requirements smoothly.

Amazon's support model is consistent across services. I'd rate it an eight out of ten, depending on the licensing.

Positive

The initial setup requires prior experience and technical skills. Once configured, using Amazon EFS is similar to other shared storage systems.

Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS.

I would rate Amazon EFS a seven out of ten. I would recommend this product to others, ensuring they have the required expertise for initial setup.

I use Elastic File Systems with EC2 instances. It is a user-friendly and serverless service.

Elastic File Systems allow me to share data, provision, and manage capacity and performance in AWS. I can easily create files and emails using Elastic File Systems. Additionally, they help me process data while maintaining low latency, which is crucial for efficient data processing.

In my project, there are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption. This is a significant challenge in every project.

I have experienced no major stability issues as there are no challenges related to Elastic File Systems in my project.

In my experience, maintaining low latency while processing data can be difficult, but Elastic File Systems allow me to scale up or down easily.

I found no deployment issues with Elastic File Systems, and the initial setup was straightforward.

Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs, using services like SSTP, and potentially being costly in a rate-shift context.

I would recommend Elastic File Systems to others because it is beneficial software. 

I rate Elastic File Systems a seven out of ten.

We are using EFS across the system to share some files, backup, and files that users use for their day-to-day purposes. It is implemented across the system in project moments such as development, testing, QA, and production. EFS allows us to share backups from development, making it all possible with EFS.

Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is secure as it is used under VPC. It provides extra throughput and IOPS, allowing us to configure it according to the MDA. It is easy to use for those planning to use a common shared drive or an effective kind of drive.

I have been using these services for more than two years.

We haven't seen any downtime or challenges when using the services.

It is very cost-effective, and there's no need for initial charges. It is on-demand.

Training and support depend on the plan you have, with centralized support being very helpful in case issues arise.

I left that company. I don't know the policies, and I am unable to provide information.

It is very cost-effective with no need for initial charges. It works on an on-demand basis.

The solution is good, and I recommend it to all customers looking for a common shared drive. They have made many improvements, and I haven't had any complaints. I would rate it a seven out of ten.

As a part of AWS services, Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) works perfectly fine. In the tool, users need to check for the performance optimization functionality. Performance optimization was introduced as a feature that allows users to fine-tune performance. The lack of transparency in the costs attached to the product is an area of concern where improvements are required. The product interaction with AWS services is fine. For monitoring, users must check from Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). Everything in the product, apart from cost efficiency, works fine. The performance of the product needs improvement.

I have been using Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) for three to four years. I am a customer of Amazon.

I haven't faced any stability issues with the product. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

Considering the services from Amazon used by the employees in our company, I feel that everyone uses Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). As a DevOps engineer, I am a major Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) user. If anyone needs to create a service on AWS, I take care of it in our company.

I manage Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) in my company. If I face any issues with the product, I can do some research and development processes to fix the problem. If I am not able to fix an issue with the product, Amazon's support team is available to help our company.

The product's initial setup phase was not very difficult and was possible to manage.

The product's price depends on the services and the size and capacity at which it is used in a business environment.

My company uses Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) to provide scalability in the area of storage in the cloud services covered under AWS. The tool is suitable for a wide range of use cases, including two big data analytics and media processing workflows. The tool automatically scales up its system storage capacity. The tool also removes unused files or unused data, or it will remove the files and add certain files. For multiple Amazon EC2 instances, one can use Amazon EFS (Elastic File System).

Speaking about Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) in relation to disaster recovery, I can say that RDS is available in EC2 instances, where users can store any file. Suppose a user has a web application that is hosted on AWS services, and if such a user faces any critical component of the application in the database hosted on AWS services, then it is possible to check the configuration files stored in Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), while also being able to check the capabilities and any critical issues faced by the hosting service after it is possible to recover the data with the help of data replication, cross-region duplication, and snapshot backup. Users have to assign automation backup, so it is possible to have a backup with Amazon EFS (Elastic File System).

The most beneficial feature of the product for data storage stems from the fact that it serves as a shared file storage. With Amazon EFS (Elastic File System), its users can share data with multiple services, which Amazon fully manages. With the product, users have manual capability planning. The tool also helps with storage management. With the tool, it is possible to automatically scale up based on storage needs. The product also offers manual intervention, along with the shared file system mounted into multiple EC2 instances. Amazon EFS offers multiple AZs.

The scalability feature of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) has impacted our company's storage solutions since it automatically scales up, as we have assigned it as a part of AWS services. In our company, we can automatically scale up for better services based on the request load. The tool can also be used for dynamic scaling, or users can apply it for multi-AZ replication. The scalability feature can be used under Amazon EFS performance mode.

For security purposes, as a part of AWS, Amazon takes care of the main part of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System). To access any service, my company has to provide the IP addresses and port numbers. My company has virtual private clouds and AZs for network security. My company also has access to both public and private subnets. In our company, we can save on a private subnet. In the private subnet, users don't have any internet access. Right? If you need to access data from the private subnet to the public subnet, then you can add a NAT gateway to access such data.

The integration of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) with other AWS services has enhanced our company's infrastructure. It is possible to integrate Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) with AWS EC2 instances, AWS Lambda, Amazon EKS, Amaand AWS RDS.

The integration of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) with other AWS services has enhanced our company's infrastructure. It is possible to integrate Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) with AWS EC2 instances, Amazon S3, AWS Lambda, Amazon EKS, and Amazon RDS.

As a part of AWS, users can use many services, including Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) for shared file storage. Users can use Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) as a part of EC2 instances or RDS.

I rate the overall tool a nine out of ten.

We are in the process of reorganizing the services that currently exist within the university on our premises. Our plan is to transition everything to the cloud. We initiated this transition using Azure and started implementing AWS for the learning system. Currently, we're in the prototype stage and haven't reached the production phase yet.

I appreciate Amazon's extensive range of services, which makes it a favorable choice. When it comes to designing a system, it's not exactly simple because there are numerous approaches, but I'm fond of the scalability features it offers. I find it appealing. While Azure is similar in many respects, I perceive it as being somewhat less flexible in terms of scalability.   

Specifically, when it comes to the file system for the learning system, we encountered performance issues with both Azure and AWS. To address this, we experimented with external solutions like NetApp's file system on Amazon's marketplace. In some aspects, we found that on-premises solutions performed better.

I have been using this solution for one year.

The stability can be rated an eight out of 10, because of some short glitches faced.

The scalability is perfect, and I can rate it 10 out of 10.

In this context, the primary concern is the pricing. The university in Italy has a more cost-effective arrangement with Azure, which is the foremost reason for our preference for Azure over AWS.

Initially, the initial setup is straightforward, but, as is typical, complexity arises over time.

I would rate the pricing a seven out of 10. 

I would rate the overall solution an eight out of 10.