-2

I am trying to create a system where users can upload their data (audio, text) which can run into around 200 MB per user. I am trying to figure out what is the best way to go ahead - using S3 or EBS.

Here's what I have found till now based on my research

EBS advantage

  • lower latency with less variation
  • fast directory listing and searching
  • no consistency delays

S3 advantages

  • For a streaming use case, S3 may be a better choice
  • provides a web services interface for storing and retrieving data
  • can be secured with tokens

EBS Disadvantage

  • may fail and lose their data
  • data should be backed to prevent data loss

S3 Disadvantage

  • Has low directory listing and searching
  • higher latency
  • there may be a delay in writes appearing in the system

My conclusion - EBS is better for fast response and S3 for durability. I am looking into the possibility of backing up data with Glacier.

So which one should I use - EBS or S3?

Thanks.

lostInTransit
  • 149
  • 1
  • 7

1 Answers1

-1

Use s3.. you won't be able to scale out with EBS since it can only be mounted on a single server. With s3 you can upload from multiple servers.

Plus s3 never goes down.. ebs has been known to have really epic failures. Even data loss.

Mike
  • 22,310
  • 7
  • 56
  • 79
  • EBS can most certainly be scaled. They're just disk drives - something like Gluster allows scale-out and data redundancy. – ceejayoz Apr 01 '13 at 13:44
  • I just wanted to point out that S3 is down right now and has been for over an hour. – jimmy0x52 Feb 28 '17 at 18:43