Using Amazon Storage Gateway (File Gateway) vs regular Sync to Amazon S3 -


i using aws s3 file storage. in instances application needs read , write 1000+ files 1 one s3. doing such operations on http slower , occupies bandwidth.

approach 1
though of storing files locally in folder , i/o operations locally. , have cloudberry sync these files s3 bucket on daily schedule.

approach 2
came across amazon storage gateway (file gateway). file gateway, configured s3 buckets available network file system (nfs) mount points. applications read , write files , directories on nfs. in turn, amazon storage gateway sync these files s3 bucket.

which approach better option?

i have never used amazon storage gateway assuming have host gateway on different server, i/o operation slower because i/o perform on network using unc path. amazon storage gateway has caching, cache files?

aws storage gateway (file gateway) provides vm image run on local server. makes nfs mount available on network. connects in back-end amazon s3.

file gateway

files cached locally, can accessed (if used recently). cache provided on vm running storage gateway vm image.

compared hourly/daily sync (which done aws command-line interface (cli) aws s3 sync command), storage gateway perform updates throughout day. consume less storage space because caches recently-accessed objects rather all objects.

while files accessed across network, no different using normal file server.

however, if sync option works use-case, means try it. simpler setup.


Comments

Popular posts from this blog

php - Vagrant up error - Uncaught Reflection Exception: Class DOMDocument does not exist -

vue.js - Create hooks for automated testing -

Add new key value to json node in java -