This is pretty different than s3fs. s3fs is a FUSE file system that is backed by S3.

This means that all of the non-atomic operations that you might want to do on S3 (including edits to the middle of files, renames, etc) are run on the machine running S3fs. As a result, if your machine crashes, it's not clear what's going to show up in your S3 bucket or if would corrupt things.

As a result, S3fs is also slow because it means that the next stop after your machine is S3, which isn't suitable for many file-based applications.

What AWS has built here is different, using EFS as the middle layer means that there's a safe, durable place for your file system operations to go while they're being assembled in object operations. It also means that the performance should be much better than s3fs (it's talking to ssds where data is 1ms away instead of hdds where data is 30ms away).

A more solid (especially when it comes to caching) solution would be appreciated.

I thought that would be their https://github.com/awslabs/mountpoint-s3 . But no mention about this one either.

S3 files does have the advantage of having a "shared" cache via EFS, but then that would probably also make the cache slower.

I was thinking: "No way this has existed for decades". But the earliest I can find it existing is 2008. Strictly speaking not decades but much closer to it than I expected.