AWS Elastic File System VS Google Filestore
Are you considering AWS Elastic File System or Google Filestore? Well, look no further because we've got you covered! In this blog post, we'll compare AWS Elastic File System and Google Filestore in terms of pricing, performance, features, and more. So, let's dive right in!
Pricing
Both AWS and Google offer pay-as-you-go pricing models, which means you only pay for what you use. AWS Elastic File System charges $0.30 per GB-month for standard storage and $0.45 per GB-month for infrequent access storage, with no upfront costs. On the other hand, Google Filestore charges $0.20 per GB-month, with no additional costs for infrequent access.
Performance
When it comes to performance, AWS Elastic File System provides a higher throughput and lower latency than Google Filestore, with scalable performance up to petabytes. However, Google Filestore offers higher IOPS performance than AWS Elastic File System.
Features
AWS Elastic File System supports multiple file systems, including network file system version 4 (NFSv4), and also integrates seamlessly with other AWS services. Additionally, AWS Elastic File System provides automatic backups, automatic replication, and encryption at rest. On the other hand, Google Filestore supports industry-standard protocols, including NFSv3 and SMB, and also provides automatic backups, automatic replication, and encryption at rest.
User Engagement
Now, let's talk about user engagement, because what's a blog post without a little human touch? Though we want to provide you with comprehensive facts and figures that help decide which platform is better for you, we also want to keep you entertained. So here's a fun tidbit: while comparing the two services, we found ourselves on the fence about which one to recommend. But then we thought, "Hey, why not recommend both?" That's right. If you're looking for flexibility, why not use both AWS Elastic File System and Google Filestore? We call this the "File System Sandwich," and it's delicious.