Google Cloud Storage and Amazon EFS compete in the data storage category. Google Cloud Storage holds an edge in pricing, scalability, and ease of use, while Amazon EFS is favored for its features and reliability.
Features: Google Cloud Storage provides enhanced security, scalability, and ease of integration with features such as Pub/Sub, Data Explorer, and BigQuery. Amazon EFS is notable for its auto-scaling capabilities, easy integration with AWS services, and shared storage access, appealing to technical deployments.
Room for Improvement: Users suggest enhancing user management, security features, and integration for Google Cloud Storage. For Amazon EFS, improving cost-efficiency, performance, and functionality for Windows users is desired, along with a simpler setup process.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Google Cloud Storage is appreciated for its simplicity in public cloud environments, though support responsiveness varies. Amazon EFS benefits from positive feedback for its customer service, aiding in troubleshooting and system management with on-premises and cloud options.
Pricing and ROI: Google Cloud Storage is cost-effective with flexible pricing and free tiers, especially for limited storage needs. Amazon EFS offers scalable pay-as-you-go pricing but can incur higher costs compared to solutions like AWS S3, valued for its technical capabilities despite the premium cost.
While the time to respond was good, the time to resolve was not optimal, as it took more than a week.
Amazon's support model is consistent across services.
Training and support depend on the plan you have, with centralized support being very helpful in case issues arise.
We have self-studied to learn the services.
For SAP loads, Google provided a specific team, which resulted in good support.
Its auto-scaling feature is a crucial point, providing high scalability that I would rate at ten out of ten.
Elastic File Systems allow me to scale up or down easily.
It is very cost-effective, and there's no need for initial charges.
Google Cloud Storage is scalable, but there are limitations.
Amazon EFS is extremely stable, as it is managed by AWS.
While I experienced an EFS mount dropping, it was related to server issues rather than EFS itself.
There was no direct experience with any instability during my involvement.
Database-type workloads do not run properly on Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) because at the end of the day, it is a network file system and requests must travel from one place to another and then return.
Enabling AI-driven or automatic features would be beneficial for new or nontechnical users.
In my project, there are challenges related to AWS, such as ensuring proper security measures with IMS code and encryption.
They cover a broad range of products, which might affect their ability to compete well in certain niches.
EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage.
Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs.
Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS.
Google Cloud was cheaper compared to AWS and Azure.
Depending on your setup, Google Cloud Storage is economical, especially if you do not need high stability and scalability.
Its ease of integration with other AWS services enhances our infrastructure, while the shared storage access improves reliability and processing continuity for our applications.
They help me process data while maintaining low latency, which is crucial for efficient data processing.
The major advantage of Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) is that it was easy to configure in the earlier days, allowing you to set it up within three clicks.
The user interface of Google Cloud Storage is easy and consistent across all their products.
We do not experience any disruptions, and the service meets our needs and requirements.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Google Cloud Storage | 4.3% |
| Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) | 3.3% |
| Other | 92.4% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 6 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 4 |
| Large Enterprise | 8 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 31 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 17 |
| Large Enterprise | 34 |
Amazon Elastic File System (Amazon EFS) provides simple, scalable file storage for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Amazon EFS is easy to use and offers a simple interface that allows you to create and configure file systems quickly and easily. With Amazon EFS, storage capacity is elastic, growing and shrinking automatically as you add and remove files, so your applications have the storage they need, when they need it.
When mounted to Amazon EC2 instances, an Amazon EFS file system provides a standard file system interface and file system access semantics, allowing you to seamlessly integrate Amazon EFS with your existing applications and tools. Multiple Amazon EC2 instances can access an Amazon EFS file system at the same time, allowing Amazon EFS to provide a common data source for workloads and applications running on more than one Amazon EC2 instance.
It’s designed for high availability and durability, and provides performance for a broad spectrum of workloads and applications, including Big Data and analytics, media processing workflows, content management, web serving, and home directories.
Google Cloud Storage is praised for its fast performance, seamless integration, high security, and scalability. Users store and access large amounts of data easily, backup files, host websites, and collaborate on projects. The platform's reliability and cost-effectiveness make it a top choice for data storage and management.
We monitor all Cloud Storage reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.
