So unless you run GCP at a very high % of provisioned capacity, it's more expensive.
I'm pretty confident EFS can't match GCP's 700 MB/s and 30,000 IOPS though.
For small block sizes, I got hundreds of IOPS.
Latency was pretty terrible in almost all cases.
I wrote a great deal on this topic for internal consumption. Those benchmarks weren't really meant for the general public. My biggest conclusion is that EFS isn't useful for any workload where performance is a concern. Unfortunately, it's priced so high, that I'd never consider using it otherwise.
That's still a drawback as your app needs to manage dynamic resizing. While aws may not be more expensive, it's more convenient
Also I haven't had a single issue with performance. It's not particularly busy though (~800 iops?).
So large files work well, but if you have many smaller files it's killer.
We built our app to do caching locally into NVMe drives though, so we async pull data from EFS and push back as necessary.
Definitely going to give Filestore a spin and see if it is a good fit for our use cases.
The only constant with tech support is that it's highly variable and depends on many factors. Enterprise MSDN/SQL support is not bad though and you should've gotten a quick reply if you're using the proper channels with an appropriate support plan.
You get an account manager rep and upon occasion, interactions with AWS engineers, depending on what you're doing and how exciting it is.
One might say a lot about AWS - but I don't fault them on the customer service front for a serious business spending serious money.
I'm sure there is some good use for it; I just haven't found one yet.