✅ The requirement is:
- Store less frequently accessed files.
- Files need to be concurrently accessed by hundreds of EC2 instances.
- Must provide immediate access (no retrieval delay).
- Must be cost-effective.
❓Why Amazon EFS is the right answer (and not Amazon S3):
| Feature | Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) | Amazon S3 (Simple Storage Service) |
|---|---|---|
| Access Method | File system (POSIX-compliant) – NFS | Object storage – API-based (HTTP/HTTPS) |
| Concurrent EC2 Access | ✅ Natively supports 1000s of EC2 instances | ❌ Needs extra logic/tools (e.g., mounting via S3FS, not recommended) |
| Latency / Access Time | Millisecond latency, immediate file access | Millisecond latency, but not suitable for file system workloads |
| Designed For | Shared file system for Linux apps | Object storage, backup, archive, big data, etc. |
| Cost Efficiency for Infrequent Access | ✅ EFS Infrequent Access (IA) tier is cost-effective | ✅ S3 Standard-IA is cost-effective |
| POSIX Compliance | ✅ Yes | ❌ No |
🔍 Key reason why it's not S3:
Even though S3 is cheaper in some cases (like backups), S3 is not a file system. It is object storage. While it can store .txt, .json, etc., it is not designed for:
- Mounting directly to EC2 like a shared drive.
- Concurrent read/write from hundreds of EC2s as if it's a shared disk.
Using tools like s3fs to mount S3 is not recommended in production due to:
- Limited performance,
- Lack of full POSIX compliance,
- No file locking, and
- Increased complexity.
Top comments (0)