Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Reviews

The solution is useful for storing details of our internal projects.

The solution is pretty interesting. It is a very useful product for engineering. That is why we chose it. We can run code and deploy it whenever we want. I understand the configuration. The integration of EFS with other AWS services has been helpful.

When we faced some issues, the support team took a lot of time to resolve them. We raised the concern to the support team when we got the issue. We got the resolution, but it took more time than expected.

I have been using the solution for two years.

The tool is stable and meets our requirements. I rate the tool’s stability a ten out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability an eight to nine out of ten.

In the beginning, when we faced challenges, we contacted the support persons, and they helped us with the configuration. If there is a critical incident, the support team provides a resolution very quickly. The team is helpful. We have received good support till now.

The initial setup is not that difficult. I was trained in the cloud before I was onboarded to the project. I had a training session within my organization. It is easy to understand the configuration with the documentation.

I will recommend the product to others. We are partners. Our clients moved from on-premise setup to the cloud. We suggested AWS to them. We have configured the product based on the best practices. We also monitor the solution for recommendations in the Security Hub. We try to get the data encrypted properly within our repository. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

I'm a consultant, and I architect solutions for customers by using Amazon EFS in other Amazon products. I am using EFS based on NFS version 4.

I have a customer who is using around 20 Linux servers hosting MySQL databases. Their storage is in Amazon EFS. So, around 20 Linux servers are connecting to Amazon EFS.

Before Amazon EFS, our customer was using EBS volumes in a unique EC2 instance to serve NFS servers. Now, these EC2 instances are not necessary. The productivity of the customer has improved by around 30% by using Amazon EFS instead of a unique EC2 NFS instance.

Its elasticity and flexible pricing are the most valuable. For Amazon EFS, you are charged based on the storage. It is also very fast and stable with a very simple and intuitive interface.

It could be better in connecting with Windows Server instances.

I have been working with Amazon EFS for around two years.

Its stability is wonderful. Our customers are very grateful because it has been working successfully in a very much acceptable way.

Its scalability is great. It is very fast. It is almost instantaneous. Our customers are small and medium business companies.

For this project, we did not need support. We didn't use professional or paid support. Amazon's documentation is very rich and helped us during this project.

Our clients didn't know any other solution like this. We, as IT consultant, offered the solution to the clients.

The initial setup is straightforward. 

It has flexible pricing. You are charged based on your storage.

It a great scalable and stable solution, but just use Unix or Linux servers on-premises or in the Amazon cloud. I won't recommend using a Network File System to connect to Windows Servers.

I would rate Amazon EFS a nine out of ten.

We use the solution for deploying large serverless functions. It helps run Lambda functions with large dependencies like Tensorflow.

The solution doesn't have any size limitations for packages. Also, loading modules from EFS is fast enough. EFS can be easily mounted to an EC2 machine and written to.

The solution's deployment process could be faster while installing Python packages. If the Python environment is also maintained in the EFS, then installing modules takes forever to complete. Thus, we had to maintain the package environment outside of EFS, like within the EC2 instance it is mounted to.

We have been using the solution for one year.

The solution is scalable. Although, sometimes, it fails to scale up in dynamic settings when traffic surges.

We tried to use AWS ECS as well. But we encountered difficulties working with ECS due to our technical limitations. EFS was easier for us.

The solution's initial setup is easy if you have prior experience. It takes only under ten minutes to complete.

The solution's price is mid-ranged.

I recommend the solution to others and rate it a nine out of ten. It is a good service and provides faster loading of packages.

The solution is quite stable. There were some bugs at a point but after we patched it, it was stable. 

The user activity needs to be more connected and not required to connect to a PC or a device. It would be good to have remote access to a client, like OneDrive that we can share with other.

We have been using this solution for almost five years. It is deployed on-premises.

It is a scalable solution. We have about 400 users using Amazon EFS. It took one person to deploy.

The initial setup was straightforward. It came out to the vendors and took a couple of months.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. I would have rated it ten if not for the upcycle.

We need our storage to expand based on demand but storage is a bit costly. So we start with a smaller amount and, as we grow, we use EFS on demand. It manages our costs.

We can predict our storage which comes over a period of time. So it is better that we start small and it automatically helps us grow. 

We are not that big of a cloud user. We just use it for the storage of our bytes. The most valuable aspect is the storage. 

It should be simplified. There are people who don't have cloud experience. It should be storage that we are able to just connect to. We help create direct connectors to the cloud storage so we can just connect them like any regular databases. We just connect them then store it.

I have been using Amazon EFS for around two years. 

We get some help from the local Amazon team so we don't have any problems with it. 

We haven't needed to contact customer support. 

We used an integrator for the deployment. 

Initially, the cost of storage seems to be small. But customer cost for the storage is really very high and this doesn't work for India. We do not have that kind of economy and we are basic market users. This is really challenging and they should bring it down tremendously. The monthly cost is so high.

Now that social media is so popular, people will definitely need a lot of storage and if it can be brought down, people will be a lot happier to invest. I would suggest offering two terabytes or five terabytes per year for 1,000 rupees. It's a price that's more doable. 

I would definitely recommend this solution. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. They should look into what Google and other providers are offering. 

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.

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.