Find out in this report how the two Cloud Storage solutions compare in terms of features, pricing, service and support, easy of deployment, and ROI.
I have seen a return on investment as it saves both time and money with this agile technology.
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.
If I want to change something on my resources or directly access it via the portal, there is not a service level agreement of 100%, and sometimes it's quite difficult to access.
The customer support for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is not good.
Technical support from Microsoft is good.
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.
The storage is very scalable, so you can effortlessly scale it.
The downloading of high volume data and scalability processes face performance issues related to high data volumes.
Most of the time, it fits the requirement, but for drastic demands, we may need to provide quotas and other requirements to Microsoft for them to manage forecast and capacity planning.
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.
The downloading of high volume data and scalability processes face performance issues related to high data volumes.
From a security standpoint, there is a question mark due to past cyber attacks.
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.
When using Data Lakes for analytics and frequently pulling data from our source database to Microsoft Azure Blob Storage, there should be faster methods to download large data from Microsoft Azure Storage Blob to different locations.
They need enhancement in security aspects. Security alerts and integrations could be improved as part of lifecycle management, especially for archives and restoration requirements.
The improvement needed for Microsoft Azure Object Storage is to reduce the transactional charges, as these read and write operation charges are higher.
EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage.
Amazon EFS is more costly compared to other storage options available from AWS.
Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs.
It's a pay-per-use solution and a good idea for proof of concept and value.
The licensing cost of Microsoft Azure Object Storage is cheaper compared to other competitors, such as Google or third-party solutions, which easily engages customers.
Regarding pricing for Microsoft Azure Object Storage, I find it reasonable.
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 most valuable feature of Amazon EFS is its auto-scaling capability.
Since I work mostly with AI/ML, data piping, data integrations, and ETL tools, these features are valuable.
When talking about storage accounts, customers utilize Azure file as a replica of the file server, allowing them to access file shares or storage accounts from their systems, making it easy to use while automatically syncing data with the cloud.
The ability to store everything inside Blob or Object storage and use it for archiving data is beneficial.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) | 3.3% |
| Dropbox Business - Enterprise | 7.7% |
| NetApp Cloud Volumes ONTAP | 7.0% |
| Other | 82.0% |
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Microsoft Azure Object Storage | 3.0% |
| Amazon S3 | 13.2% |
| Amazon S3 Glacier | 11.5% |
| Other | 72.3% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 6 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 4 |
| Large Enterprise | 8 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 23 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 11 |
| Large Enterprise | 21 |
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.
REST-based object storage for unstructured data in the cloud
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.
