2.2.1.5. Comparative Table: Storage Service Selection Criteria
š” First Principle: Optimal architectural design necessitates a clear understanding of each storage service's unique strengths, ideal use cases, and inherent trade-offs across performance, durability, scalability, and cost.
Scenario: A company operates a legacy Windows application on "EC2 instances" that requires a highly performant, shared file system accessible via "SMB" protocol, integrated with "Active Directory".
Choosing the right storage service is critical for a well-architected solution. This table summarizes the key considerations and differentiators.
| Feature | "Amazon S3 (Object)" | "Amazon EBS (Block)" | "Amazon EFS (File)" | "Amazon FSx (File)" | "Amazon Glacier (Archive)" |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Type | Object Storage | Block Storage | Network File System ("NFS") | Managed Third-Party File Systems | Archive Storage |
| Access | HTTP/S API | Mounts to single "EC2" in "AZ" | Mounts to multiple "EC2"/on-prem, "POSIX" | Mounts to "EC2"/on-prem, native protocols | "S3 API" (as storage class) |
| Scalability | Virtually unlimited | Scales up to 64TB per volume | Petabyte scale, elastic | Scales by TB, specific to file system type | Virtually unlimited |
| Durability | 11 nines | High (replicated within "AZ") | 11 nines (replicated across "AZs") | High (specific to "FSx" type) | 11 nines |
| Performance | High throughput, variable latency | High "IOPS"/throughput, low latency ("SSD") | High throughput, variable latency | Very high "IOPS"/throughput | Very low (delayed retrieval) |
| Use Case | Data lakes, backups, static websites, archives | Boot volumes, databases, high-performance apps | Shared apps, content management, dev tools | Windows apps, HPC, specialized workloads | Long-term archives, compliance |
| Cost Model | Per GB, requests, data transfer (flexible tiers) | Per GB, "IOPS"/throughput, snapshots | Per GB, throughput | Per GB, throughput, backup | Per GB, retrieval cost (lowest storage) |
| DR/HA | "Cross-Region Replication" | Snapshots, "Multi-AZ ASG" | "Multi-AZ" by design | "Multi-AZ"/"Single-AZ" options | "CRR", "Vault Lock" |
Visual: Storage Service Comparison Matrix (Simplified)
Loading diagram...
ā ļø Common Pitfall: Choosing "EFS" for a workload that specifically requires the "SMB" protocol and native Windows features. While "EFS" is a shared file system, "FSx for Windows File Server" is purpose-built for these requirements and will provide better performance and compatibility.
Key Trade-Offs:
- General Purpose (
"EFS") vs. Specialized ("FSx"):"EFS"is a general-purpose"NFS"file system."FSx"provides specialized, high-performance file systems (for Windows, Lustre, etc.) that are optimized for specific workloads and protocols.
Reflection Question: Based on the table, which AWS storage service would be the most suitable for a legacy Windows application requiring a highly performant, shared file system accessible via "SMB" protocol and integrated with "Active Directory", and why would it be preferred over "Amazon EFS" or "Amazon S3"?