Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) Reviews

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.