Comparison between two storage providers
Compare features of Amazon Web Services (AWS) with OpenShift Data Foundation
(ODF).
| Characteristic | AWS EBS + EFS | OpenShift Data Foundation (ODF) |
|---|---|---|
| Block storage data replication | EBS replicated within a single Availability Zone (AZ) |
Replicated across AZs (More flexible failover scenarios) |
| File storage data replication | EFS replicated across AZs | Replicated across AZs |
| Network costs for replication | Included in storage price | Additional charge for cross-AZ data transfer within AWS |
| Operational management | Managed by AWS | Managed by the user |
| Resource requirements | Included by AWS | Additional CPUs / nodes required in cluster |
| Deployment locations | AWS only |
Portable anywhere on AWS, on-premises, Azure Virtual or bare metal servers (Consistent storage option regardless of environment) |
| Number of volumes per worker | ~28, depending upon EC2 instance type | Hundreds |
| Disk performance | Specific to each volume | Managed across the set of volumes |
| File storage characteristics | EFS has constraints with certain types of workload | Good for most workloads, including workloads with stronger storage requirements |
| Volume mount time | 30 seconds to 2 minutes | Less than 30 seconds |