- Newest
- Most votes
- Most comments
If you are looking for high-performance NFS-accessible storage, you should try FSx for OpenZFS. It provides local-like performance with fully managed shared file storage, supports NFS v3, v4, v4.1, v4.2, and offers powerful ZFS capabilities for working with data .
Can you elaborate on the cost and additional setup? The all-in pricing for FSx for OpenZFS is ~10c/GB-mo, and ~5c/GB-mo if you include the impact of compression. (You can use the AWS Pricing Calculator to create a custom estimate.) As for additional setup, you can quick-create a file system via the FSx Console and mount it to your NFS client in minutes.
Actually, that's was exactly what I have used, as the storage it self was cheap, assuming smallest storage of 64 GB
Total monthly cost for FSx for OpenZFS file system storage: 5.76 USD Total monthly cost for FSx for OpenZFS backup storage: 0 USD Total cost for FSx for OpenZFS storage and backups (monthly): 5.76 USD
The throughput seems to be confusing as regardless what number I use for throughput (0 to 64 Mbps), it charges 16.64 USD a month
Max (64.00 MBps, 0 Mbps) = 64.00 MBps per month (Provisioned throughput capacity) 64.00 Mbps x 0.26 USD per Month = 16.64 USD Total monthly cost for FSx for OpenZFS file system throughput: 16.64 USD 3 IOPS per GB of SSD storage (default) x 64.00 GB per month = 192.00 total default provisioned IOPS Max (0 miniumum additional IOPS, 0 additional user-provisioned IOPS) = 0.00 provisioned SSD IOPS Total monthly cost for FSx for OpenZFS Provisioned IOPS: 0 USD Total cost for FSx for OpenZFS throughput and IOPS (monthly): 16.64 USD
https://calculator.aws/#/estimate?id=5c11ccd2b6a6504f00667ff1fbf3f14d680828c1
We have setup FSx with 64G and default throughput/IOPs configuration, the performance is a >2x better compared to EFS
/efs/conf$ time du -h | tail -n 1
9.0G .
real 0m41.206s
user 0m0.598s
sys 0m4.207s
But still 4x slower than storage attached with EBS
Can you confirm that your EC2 client is located in the same subnet/AZ as your FSx for OpenZFS file system? We would expect performance to be much closer to locally attached EBS.
Relevant content
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 4 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 10 months ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 3 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 3 months ago
Hi,
Thanks for the suggestion, we were also looking into FSx as well but it seems to be a bit more costly and requires additional setup.
It would have been a lot simpler if AWS would make it clear that EFS is not really suitable for typical web application performance unless all contents are cached in memory given its poor performance.