4 ms·
EFS is really expensive and has terrible latency with small files in my experience
by candiddevmike 3y ago
EFS is really expensive and has terrible latency with small files in my experience
- brazzledazzle 3y agoYeah the main reason is that it's incredibly expensive. You can improve performance by allocating ahead of time but NFS has never been at its best when working with a bunch of tiny files.
- richieartoul 3y agoDo you have any more details you can share about the performance of EFS? I've never met anyone who has actually used it in anger.
- gchamonlive 3y agoThroughput scales with the amount of data in it, it is in the docs. So depending on the application, even if latency is better, the speeds are atrocious at lower volumes of persisted data.
- saddlerustle 3y agoThat’s not true anymore with EFS Elastic Throughput
- a2tech 3y agoYes, I built a moderately large system on it that used lots of small shared files. The performance was fairly terrible. There's weird little niggles with it--we had random slowdowns, throughput issues, and things just didn't work quite right. It was an ok solution for what we were doing, but several times I came really close to just dumping it and standing up an NFS server using EBS volumes. I also used it a couple of times to store webroots and that was a complete disaster with systems that had lots of small files (Drupal I'm looking at you).
- huntaub 3y agoNote that EFS One Zone is priced the same as S3 Express One Zone with similar latency. One isn't better or worse than the other, it only depends on what kind of access your application needs.
- dekhn 3y agoWhen you set up EFS did you maximize the IO settings? Before doing that it was unacceptably slow. After doing that it was unacceptably expensive.