# Amazon S3 Files 9 Hacker News commenters recommended Amazon S3 Files and 10 criticized it, November 2025 to November 2026. It was recommended in 2 of 13 months. **Verdict:** Lets AWS users treat S3 buckets as file systems, with a shared EFS cache and simpler workflows; critics note it is not POSIX and lacks atomic rename. ## Why people recommend it - Simplifies file-based workflows (2 comments): "their life greatly simplified today" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680767)) "this sounds really useful" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47681649)) - Shared EFS cache layer for durability (2 comments): "S3 files does have the advantage of having a "shared" cache via EFS, but then that would probably also make the cache slower." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47681041)) "using EFS as the middle layer means that there's a safe, durable place for your file system operations" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47681218)) - Good design compromise, well launched (2 comments): "It's a good compromise and kudos to whoever managed to push through the design." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47681013)) "good to see something get launched but the sausage making her was brutal" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47689965)) ## What people warn about - No atomic rename support (3 comments): "doesn't support atomic rename and has no prospect of supporting atomic rename" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691744)) "you can't rename a directory without a full copy of all its contents" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47685934)) "S3 Files was launched today without support for atomic rename." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47685528)) - Not POSIX; object semantics mismatch (3 comments): "The problem with using S3 as a filesystem is that it’s immutable, and that hasn’t changed with S3 Files." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47683663)) "the mismatch between object store semantics and file semantics mean you will probably Have A Bad Time" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47681544)) "S3 Files is not POSIX compliant and doesn’t claim to be so." ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=48049256)) - Design seen as a hack (2 comments): "let's put a fresh coat on top of it and pretend it's something that fundamentally is not" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47682607)) "I have trouble seeing this as something other than a giant "hack."" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47680613)) - Cache latency and design tradeoffs (2 comments): "If the S3 Files sync logic ran client-side, we could almost entirely avoid file access latency for cached files" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47683790)) "it might have been better (and cheaper) to send all files to S3 and only use EFS for the metadata layer" ([source](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=47691631)) ## Alternatives hackers recommend - [ZeroFS](https://hackerapproved.com/p/zerofs.md): 14 recommend - [s3fs](https://hackerapproved.com/p/s3fs.md): 5 recommend ## Where to get it - [Visit the official site](https://aws.amazon.com/s3/) ## Cite as Hacker Approved, "Amazon S3 Files", https://hackerapproved.com/p/s3-files/ (counts from 1,795,640 Hacker News comments, November 2025 to November 2026).