3 ms·
But NFS isn't a custom protocol for any specific app either, and apps that need good fs performance (eg databases, video editing platforms, "big data" compute p
by fulafel 6y ago
But NFS isn't a custom protocol for any specific app either, and apps that need good fs performance (eg databases, video editing platforms, "big data" compute platforms etc) avoid it.
Implementation-wise HTTP has the advantage that the apps can tune the client code because the protocol client implementation isn't in the kernel.
In addition HTTP security (transport & user authentication) is works and everyone understands it, whereas on NFS it's a huge mess and enemy of interoperability.
In practical popularity NFS fares extremely poorly eg on AWS (how many apps use EFS vs S3).
- ralph84 6y agoEFS is much more expensive than S3, so there is a strong incentive to make your app work with S3 unless you absolutely need a filesystem.
- kondro 6y agoAs with all things AWS, it depends. Yes EFS is 30¢ per GB and S3 is 2.3¢. But S3 also charges $5/million object writes (and 40¢ for reads), but EFS is "free" (factoring burst capacity, per-instance maximum throughput limits, etc). Couple that with EFS' lifecycle migration allowing you to get storage costs as low as 2.5¢/GB for many write-once-read-(almost)never after 7 day applications, things get a lot more complicated.