Article
Mounting S3 Buckets with s3fs: Pros, Cons, and Faster Options
•
read
Maintaining Old Paradigms with New Cloud Technologies
As organizations migrate to cloud storage, many developers bring with them expectations shaped by years of working with hierarchical file systems. These traditional file systems, like those found in operating systems, organize data in folders and subfolders, offering a tree-like structure that feels intuitive and familiar.
This hierarchical mindset becomes a challenge when moving to Amazon S3, which is not a file system but an object store. In S3, there are no true directories, only object keys that may contain slashes to simulate folder-like organization. Applications or workflows that are tightly coupled to a hierarchical structure often require significant code changes during migration. The logic for traversing directories, managing paths, and handling file metadata must be rethought for the flat, key-based nature of S3.
To ease this transition, tools like s3fs allow users to mount an S3 bucket as if it were a local file system. This lets developers and legacy applications interact with S3 using standard file operations (ls, cp, mkdir, etc.), reducing the need to rewrite large portions of code. It’s an attractive solution for teams looking to modernize without re-architecting.
The Hidden Cost of Familiar Interfaces
However, this convenience comes with trade-offs. While s3fs presents a familiar interface, it can obscure the fundamental differences between a file system and an object store. Developers may mistakenly assume that operations like renaming a folder or appending to a file will behave efficiently in S3, when in fact these operations may require copying large objects or incur higher latency and costs. Moreover, treating S3 like a file system can lead to poor performance and brittle systems if the object storage model isn’t properly understood.
The Pros and Cons of s3fs
Pros
- Low Setup Overhead: Easy migration to the cloud if you already interact with hierarchical file systems.
- Simplicity & Familiarity: You can interact with S3 using standard file commands (
cp,mv,ls, etc.). - On-Demand Downloads: Files are fetched from S3 when accessed and not stored locally unless cached, keeping disk usage minimal.
- No Need for S3 APIs: Avoids the complexity of writing native S3 API code.
- Cross-Platform Support: s3fs works on most Unix-based systems and some Windows environments via WSL, giving teams platform flexibility.
Cons
- Cost Overhead: Every action,
LIST,GET,PUT, etc., incurs S3 fees. Treating S3 like a file system can lead to excessive and unnecessary requests. - High Latency: s3fs may make multiple S3 calls for single file actions. Basic commands like
lsorfindon large directories can become very slow. - No Partial Uploads: No Partial Uploads: Objects must be fully uploaded or replaced, with no way to modify part of a file in-place. This is a limitation of object storage in general, not just s3fs. However, s3fs may create the illusion that partial edits are possible when they actually aren't.
- Caching and Consistency Issues: Despite having caching capabilities, s3fs can lose synchronization, particularly in environments with multiple access points, resulting in stale data or unpredictable behavior.
- Poor Fit for Concurrent Workloads: Under heavy parallel operations, the performance of s3fs can become unstable due to its request-heavy nature
Faster and More Reliable Alternatives
Due to the efficiency and unreliability of s3fs, it is often considered to not be a production ready library. However, more reliable alternatives do exist:
1. Native AWS SDK or CLI
The most direct and supported approach to interact with S3 is through the AWS SDK or AWS CLI. Though lacking the convenience of a mounted file system, this method provides complete control over your bucket and object interactions. It also ensures you're using S3 as AWS engineers designed it—optimizing for performance, reliability, and cost efficiency.
- Pros: Fine-grained control, full S3 feature set, official support.
- Cons: Steeper learning curve, especially for users unfamiliar with S3 APIs. Nontrivial migration of existing filesystems over to the cloud
2. AWS Mountpoint for S3
**Mountpoint for Amazon S3** is a high-performance, open-source file client developed by AWS. It allows you to mount an S3 bucket as a local file system on Linux machines, offering familiar file system semantics while being optimized for cloud-native performance.
Unlike older tools like s3fs, Mountpoint is built specifically for high-throughput workloads, such as data lakes, ML training, ETL pipelines, and large-scale simulations. It is designed for read-heavy workloads and supports sequential writes to new files.
- Pros: Built and optimized by AWS for performance; supports parallel operations; better error handling than s3fs.
- Cons: Does not support in-place file edits, renaming directories, symbolic links, file locking, or advanced POSIX metadata like permissions and user ownership. Also, writes are only allowed to new objects.
3. Data Lakes with Table Formats (e.g., Apache Iceberg)
For data engineering and analytics workloads, using S3 with a table format like Apache Iceberg, Delta Lake, or Apache Hudi can provide structured access with powerful features like ACID transactions, schema evolution, and time travel.
- Pros: High-performance queries, especially when paired with query engines like Athena, Trino, or Spark; suitable for batch and streaming workloads.
- Cons: More setup and operational complexity; better suited for analytical data, not general-purpose file storage.
4. Archil
Archil is a startup that provides an abstraction layer over object storage to make it behave more like a file system, but without the performance and consistency pitfalls of tools like s3fs. It exposes a POSIX-like interface, but under the hood, it uses object storage best practices to ensure data durability and concurrency safety. Archil is designed for workloads that need the simplicity of a file system with the reliability of modern cloud-native storage.
- Pros: Fast metadata handling, strong consistency model, supports partial reads/writes and atomic operations, simple setup.
🗂️ Comparison of S3 Access Methods
When Convenience Comes at a Cost
Mounting S3 buckets with tools like s3fs can offer a familiar interface, but it often introduces more friction than it solves, especially at scale. Performance issues, lack of proper file semantics, and unpredictable behavior under load make it a risky choice for production environments.
The better path forward is to embrace solutions that are built with object storage in mind, tools that optimize for how S3 actually works, rather than trying to force it to behave like something it's not. Whether you're dealing with analytics, ETL, or large-scale data processing, using platforms that understand the strengths and limitations of object stores leads to better performance and fewer surprises.
That’s the philosophy behind tools like Archil: treating S3 not as a filesystem, but as a core component of a modern, scalable data infrastructure. This approach prevents surprises in your cloud compute bill and unexpected issues with data management.
Authors