Amazon EFS and Pure Storage FlashBlade compete in the cloud file storage market. Pure Storage FlashBlade is often seen as the superior product due to its advanced features and high-performance data processing.
Features: Amazon EFS provides seamless scalability and integration with AWS services, offering a flexible storage solution. It supports elastic storage and is known for simplicity in attachment to EC2 instances. Pure Storage FlashBlade offers high-performance data processing with parallel architecture and advanced data management capabilities, making it suitable for data-intensive applications. It is known for fast data processing and high throughput.
Room for Improvement: Amazon EFS could improve in areas like enhanced control over scalability and providing detailed management without over-complexity. It may also benefit from innovation in its integration methods. Pure Storage FlashBlade requires improvements in initial setup complexity and the high overhead cost for entry. There could be enhancements in making its support systems more universally applicable.
Ease of Deployment and Customer Service: Amazon EFS is known for straightforward deployment within the AWS ecosystem, allowing quick and hassle-free integration and extensive support options. Pure Storage FlashBlade requires more involved setup but offers dedicated support for tailored solutions, appealing for specialized needs.
Pricing and ROI: Amazon EFS offers a pay-as-you-go model contributing to a lower initial setup cost, providing good ROI for workloads demanding flexible scaling. Pure Storage FlashBlade involves a higher initial investment but delivers significant ROI through exceptional performance and efficiency in data-heavy environments.
It does not require much management once you set up correctly, so it saves time, allowing an admin to focus on other work.
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.
The support is done through email and is not that great, making it a very problematic area I've been dealing with for over four years.
I would rate them an eight out of ten.
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.
Pure Storage FlashBlade is scalable.
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.
In case there is any issue with any blade, the data is moved to another.
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.
Technical support definitely needs significant improvement.
Its configuration should be easier.
EFS could cost around $30 to $50 per month for similar usage.
It is very cost-effective with no need for initial charges.
Elastic File Systems can be expensive due to the nature of data transfer costs.
The pricing of Pure Storage FlashBlade is expensive compared to other products I used from other companies in the past, but one benefit is that they have built-in ransomware protection.
They help me process data while maintaining low latency, which is crucial for efficient data processing.
Its ease of integration with other AWS services enhances our infrastructure, while the shared storage access improves reliability and processing continuity for our applications.
The AWS service is excellent security-wise, and I have seen some other features besides security, such as automatic scaling that helped us significantly.
The best features of Pure Storage FlashBlade include better throughput and better performance.
We can plug in many blades, and we can have data up to one terabyte.
| Product | Market Share (%) |
|---|---|
| Pure Storage FlashBlade | 5.7% |
| Amazon EFS (Elastic File System) | 0.9% |
| Other | 93.4% |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 6 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 4 |
| Large Enterprise | 7 |
| Company Size | Count |
|---|---|
| Small Business | 11 |
| Midsize Enterprise | 11 |
| Large Enterprise | 20 |
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.
FlashBlade is the industry’s most advanced scale-out storage for unstructured data, powered by a modern, massively parallel architecture to consolidate complex data silos (like backup appliances and data lakes) and accelerate tomorrow’s discoveries and insights.
We monitor all File and Object 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.
