3 ms·

I rejected EFS as a common caching and shared files layer, despite being technologically an excellent fit for my stack, because it is astronomically expensive.

I rejected EFS as a common caching and shared files layer, despite being technologically an excellent fit for my stack, because it is astronomically expensive. The value created didn’t match the cost. When I got in touch about that, I was confronted with a wall of TCO papers, which tells me the product managers evidently believe their target segment to be Gartner-following corporate drones. This was a further deterrent. We threw that idea away and used memcached instead, with common static files in a package in S3. I guess I’m suggesting, don’t be like EFS when it comes to pricing or reaching customers.

huntaub 2y ago
It's certainly my hope to be cost effective, but I understand the worry and I'm sorry that you had that experience with the PMs of that time. At the end of the day, I see my target customers as those who aren't interested in running their own infrastructure and having to manage availability and durability (in memcached case, things like needing to pre-warm the cache). I understand that it still may be possible to be more cost effective if you're willing to trade off ease of use for dealing with those other concerns.