external/og-aws
1
0
Fork 0
mirror of https://github.com/nickpoida/og-aws.git synced 2025-02-15 03:11:57 +00:00
Code Issues Releases Wiki Activity

Fixed some word choices in the EFS section, renamed File Store to Object Store in the service matrix

Browse source
This commit is contained in:
Corey Quinn 2017-04-14 20:15:19 -07:00
parent 96f471ca18
commit a943f0e1fa
1 changed files with 6 additions and 6 deletions
Show stats Download patch file Download diff file Expand all files Collapse all files

12
README.md
View file

@ -283,7 +283,7 @@ Many services within AWS can at least be compared with Google Cloud offerings or
| PaaS | Elastic Beanstalk | App Engine | App Engine | Web Apps | Heroku, AppFog, OpenShift | Meteor, AppScale, Cloud Foundry, Convox |
| Serverless, microservices | Lambda, API Gateway | Functions | | Function Apps | PubNub Blocks, Auth0 Webtask | Kong, Tyk |
| Container, cluster manager | ECS | Container Engine, Kubernetes | Borg or Omega | Container Service | | Kubernetes, Mesos, Aurora |
| File storage | S3 | Cloud Storage | GFS | Storage Account | | Swift, HDFS |
| Object storage | S3 | Cloud Storage | GFS | Storage Account | | Swift, HDFS |
| Block storage | EBS | Persistent Disk | | Storage Account | DigitalOcean Volumes | NFS |
| SQL datastore | RDS | Cloud SQL | | SQL Database | | MySQL, PostgreSQL |
| Sharded RDBMS | | Cloud Spanner | F1, Spanner | | | Crate.io, CockroachDB |
@ -935,10 +935,10 @@ EFS
- EFS is designed to be used as a shared network drive and it can automatically scale up to petabytes of stored data and thousands of instances attached to it.
- It’s presented as an [NFSv4.1](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Network_File_System#NFSv4) server, so any compatible NFS client can mount it.
- EFS can offer [higher throughput](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/performance.html) (multiple gigabytes per second) and better durability and availability than EBS (see [the comparison table](#storage-durability-availability-and-price)), but with higher latency.
- EFS is priced based on the amount of data stored and it costs [much more than EBS](#storage-durability-availability-and-price), about three times as much compared to general purpose gp2 EBS volumes.
- ⏱ [Performance](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/performance.html) depends on the amount of data stored on it, which also determines the price:
- EFS is priced based on the volume of data stored, and costs [much more than EBS](#storage-durability-availability-and-price); it's in the ballpark of three times as much compared to general purpose gp2 EBS volumes.
- ⏱ [Performance](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/performance.html) is dependent on the volume of data stored, as is the price:
- Like EBS, EFS uses a credit based system. Credits are earned at a rate of 50 KiB/s per GiB of storage and consumed in bursts during reading/writing files or metadata. Unlike EBS, operations on metadata (file size, owner, date, etc.) also consume credits. The [BurstCreditBalance metric](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/monitoring-cloudwatch.html#efs-metrics) in CloudWatch should be monitored to make sure the file system doesn't run out of credits.
- Throughput capacity during bursts is also dependant on size. Under 1 TiB, throughput can go up to 100 MiB/s. Above that, 100 MiB/s is added for each stored TiB. So a file system storing 5 TiB would be able to burst at a rate of 500 MiB/s. Maximum throughput per EC2 instance is 250 MiB/s.
- Throughput capacity during bursts is also dependent on size. Under 1 TiB, throughput can go up to 100 MiB/s. Above that, 100 MiB/s is added for each stored TiB. For instance, a file system storing 5 TiB would be able to burst at a rate of 500 MiB/s. Maximum throughput per EC2 instance is 250 MiB/s.
- EFS has two performance modes that can only be set when a file system is created. One is "General Purpose", the other is "Max I/O". Max I/O scales higher, but at the cost of higher latency. When in doubt, use General Purpose, which is also the default. If the [PercentIOLimit metric](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/monitoring-cloudwatch.html#efs-metrics) in CloudWatch hovers around 100%, Max I/O is recommended. Changing performance mode means creating a new EFS and migrating data.
- High availability is achieved by having [mount targets in different subnets / availability zones](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/images/overview-flow.png).
@ -953,7 +953,7 @@ EFS
Cons:
- Since credits are shared, if one application over-consumes them, it will affect the others.
- A compromise is made with regards to [security](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/security-considerations.html). All clients will have to have network access to the drive. Someone with root access on one client instance can mount any directory on the EFS and they have read-write access to all files on the drive, even if they don't have access to the applications hosted on other clients.
- A compromise is made with regards to [security](http://docs.aws.amazon.com/efs/latest/ug/security-considerations.html): all clients will have to have network access to the drive. Someone with root access on one client instance can mount any directory on the EFS and they have read-write access to all files on the drive, even if they don't have access to the applications hosted on other clients. There isn't a no-root-squash equivalent for EFS.
### EFS Gotchas and Limitations
@ -963,7 +963,7 @@ EFS
- 🔸 An EFS file system can NOT be mounted over VPC peering or VPN, even if the VPN is running on top of Direct Connect.
- 🔸 Using an EFS volume on Windows is not supported.
- ⏱ When a file is uploaded to EFS, it can take hours for EFS to update the details for billing and burst credit purposes.
- 🔸⏱ Metadata operations can be costly in terms of burst credit consumption. Recursively traversing a tree containing thousands of files can easily ramp up to tens or even hundreds of megabytes of burst credits being consumed, even if no file is being touched. Commands like ```find``` or ```chown -R``` can have an adverse impact on performace if run periodically.
- 🔸⏱ Metadata operations can be costly in terms of burst credit consumption. Recursively traversing a tree containing thousands of files can easily ramp up to tens or even hundreds of megabytes of burst credits being consumed, even if no file is being touched. Commands like ```find``` or ```chown -R``` can have an adverse impact on both cost and performance if run regularly.
Load Balancers