The use cases for the AWS Storage Gateway always seem to assume that the virtual storage gateway would be installed on-premises (i.e. local to the customer) and would then be synced to AWS. I am wondering about placing the storage gateway on EC2 instead.
My use-case is this:
I have a large amount of customer data that must be accessed via the filesystem (i.e. it cannot be simply stored in S3). A large percentage of this data is accessed very infrequently. I use a number of EBS volumes mounted to EC2 to accomplish this, and snapshot them to S3. However, the storage is expensive, and there is a single point of failure since EBS drives can only be attached to a single instance.
However, it sounds like I could install the virtual storage gateway on my EC2 server instead, and use the new Gateway-Caching feature to only keep the frequently-accessed data locally (using the free instance storage for the caching).
Additionally, I've read that iSCSI drives can be mounted on multiple servers as long as they are formatted with a cluster-aware filesystem.
Is this a reasonable use-case for the Storage Gateway?
Can the Storage Gateway iSCSI drive really be mounted from multiple EC2 instances, eliminating the single point of failure?