We can directly attach any of the servers. Since the file systems of different operating systems, like Linux and Windows, are different, we cannot merge them. It would be better to analyze and find a way to merge both the file systems of Linux and Windows.
Co-Founder at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
Top 20
2023-09-12T07:48:00Z
Sep 12, 2023
There are not many technical things that need improvement in EBS. It has a very long history and is AWS's first product. Its main flaw is the costliness.
Learn what your peers think about Amazon EBS (Elastic Block Store). Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: April 2024.
It is hard to access EBS volumes in different Availability Zones (AZs) because most EBS volumes are created in a single AZ. This can be a problem for workloads that require high availability or performance. I would recommend that Amazon improve the accessibility of EBS volumes across AZs. This could be done by making it easier to create EBS volumes in multiple AZs or by providing a way to automatically replicate EBS volumes across AZs. Currently, if you want to get the ability to access EBS volumes in different AZs, you need to use a different service.
Information Technology Specialist at Infiniti Creation
Real User
Top 5
2023-08-03T09:42:58Z
Aug 3, 2023
Amazon EBS is a single product or service. I have a couple of issues related to Amazon EBS from the clients regarding the use of space, which have not been resolved. If a customer increases from one TB to two TB and wants to go back to needing one TB instead of two TB, then there is a long process involved to do so currently, even though going from one TB to two TB was very easy. Returning back to one TB from two TB or reducing the space is a problem in Amazon EBS, like S3. S3 is a scalable tool, meaning that you can increase or decrease its size. In Amazon EBS, it is difficult to reduce the space chosen by the customer. The cost increases the moment the size of the storage increases, and I will have to pay for two TB of the tool instead of one TB. If my clients want to change something in the tool, they need to get approval from their company, making it a long process. It would be better if Amazon EBS had the same features as S3 since we could easily revert back to one TB from two TB easily, which is not possible right now. If I place Amazon EBS in South Asia, there will be an increase and decrease in terms of costs. Cost optimization is one challenge I have faced since placing Amazon EBS is the reason why basic costing is applicable. S3 is very cheap compared to Amazon EBS, and because of this, some clients request S3 and not Amazon EBS. Depending on the requirements of my clients, I may want extra features in the product's future releases. Scalability is very important for our company since the tool's availability is already there. Most often, we use the product's scalability feature apart from the security feature. Amazon KMS, along with CRM, is a feature we deal with in our company, areas where we face issues due to low latency. If I want access to data in ESB, then it is dependent on the encryption method which I allocate in Amazon EBS.
It is not very easy to increase the size. You can give a request to increase the size, and the size will be increased. But to actually make the EC2 machine see the newly increased size is a little difficult. You have to log in to the EC2 machine, do some commands over the terminal, and only then only it would be able to see the newly increased EBS storage. It would be good if the solution added a button to increase the size and make the EC2 machine recognize the increased capacity of the EBS.
Business Owner at a tech services company with 11-50 employees
Real User
2021-01-06T22:27:56Z
Jan 6, 2021
I think performance can be improved. It's like feeling latency when you compare apples to apples as far as what you have in a SAN on-site, on-prem versus an EBS volume in the cloud. If you want to get rid of the latency, then that's where these costs start to really add up. On the onset, it's cheaper to get started. It has every bit of capability and availability you would expect and even more than your own environment. If you're trying to get to the same or a higher level of performance, you have to bite the bullet and pay through the roof. The ability to administer it, use it, set it up, install it, and operate it is all as easy or easier. You get the flexibility to change, snapshot, and all of the same things you could do with even more capabilities. But if you have to get the same or improve your performance, it gets exponentially more costly.
Amazon Elastic Block Store (Amazon EBS) provides persistent block level storage volumes for use with Amazon EC2 instances in the AWS Cloud. Each Amazon EBS volume is automatically replicated within its Availability Zone to protect you from component failure, offering high availability and durability. Amazon EBS volumes offer the consistent and low-latency performance needed to run your workloads. With Amazon EBS, you can scale your usage up or down within minutes – all while paying a...
The features could be improved.
The initial setup is not easy.
Amazon EBS needs to improve its user interface for data transactions.
The product has volume limitations.
We can directly attach any of the servers. Since the file systems of different operating systems, like Linux and Windows, are different, we cannot merge them. It would be better to analyze and find a way to merge both the file systems of Linux and Windows.
There are not many technical things that need improvement in EBS. It has a very long history and is AWS's first product. Its main flaw is the costliness.
It is hard to access EBS volumes in different Availability Zones (AZs) because most EBS volumes are created in a single AZ. This can be a problem for workloads that require high availability or performance. I would recommend that Amazon improve the accessibility of EBS volumes across AZs. This could be done by making it easier to create EBS volumes in multiple AZs or by providing a way to automatically replicate EBS volumes across AZs. Currently, if you want to get the ability to access EBS volumes in different AZs, you need to use a different service.
Amazon EBS is a single product or service. I have a couple of issues related to Amazon EBS from the clients regarding the use of space, which have not been resolved. If a customer increases from one TB to two TB and wants to go back to needing one TB instead of two TB, then there is a long process involved to do so currently, even though going from one TB to two TB was very easy. Returning back to one TB from two TB or reducing the space is a problem in Amazon EBS, like S3. S3 is a scalable tool, meaning that you can increase or decrease its size. In Amazon EBS, it is difficult to reduce the space chosen by the customer. The cost increases the moment the size of the storage increases, and I will have to pay for two TB of the tool instead of one TB. If my clients want to change something in the tool, they need to get approval from their company, making it a long process. It would be better if Amazon EBS had the same features as S3 since we could easily revert back to one TB from two TB easily, which is not possible right now. If I place Amazon EBS in South Asia, there will be an increase and decrease in terms of costs. Cost optimization is one challenge I have faced since placing Amazon EBS is the reason why basic costing is applicable. S3 is very cheap compared to Amazon EBS, and because of this, some clients request S3 and not Amazon EBS. Depending on the requirements of my clients, I may want extra features in the product's future releases. Scalability is very important for our company since the tool's availability is already there. Most often, we use the product's scalability feature apart from the security feature. Amazon KMS, along with CRM, is a feature we deal with in our company, areas where we face issues due to low latency. If I want access to data in ESB, then it is dependent on the encryption method which I allocate in Amazon EBS.
It is not very easy to increase the size. You can give a request to increase the size, and the size will be increased. But to actually make the EC2 machine see the newly increased size is a little difficult. You have to log in to the EC2 machine, do some commands over the terminal, and only then only it would be able to see the newly increased EBS storage. It would be good if the solution added a button to increase the size and make the EC2 machine recognize the increased capacity of the EBS.
The setup could be easier.
Amazon EBS performs well but it could improve.
I think performance can be improved. It's like feeling latency when you compare apples to apples as far as what you have in a SAN on-site, on-prem versus an EBS volume in the cloud. If you want to get rid of the latency, then that's where these costs start to really add up. On the onset, it's cheaper to get started. It has every bit of capability and availability you would expect and even more than your own environment. If you're trying to get to the same or a higher level of performance, you have to bite the bullet and pay through the roof. The ability to administer it, use it, set it up, install it, and operate it is all as easy or easier. You get the flexibility to change, snapshot, and all of the same things you could do with even more capabilities. But if you have to get the same or improve your performance, it gets exponentially more costly.