Introduction

This section goes into the details of various solution stacks for deploying popular applications. The pros and cons of each stack are also described so that the user can choose the stack that most closely matches the needs of their workload.

Nextflow on AWS

MM™ Cloud supports a wide range of stacks for Nextflow. Each stack has its own pros and cons. An overview of the stacks along with hints for choosing a suitable one for a specific use case are shown in the chart below. For detailed guides, please see the respective pages from the navigation menu.

Filesystems for workdir

Here is a comparison of the various files systems supported for the Nextflow workdir.

Filesystem	Pros	Cons	Best For
S3FS	✅ POSIX-compatible ✅ Highly scalable ✅ Multi-AZ availability ✅ Low storage cost ✅ Minimal setup	❌ High throughput cost ❌ Eventual consistency ❌ Low reliability	🟢 Testing and development
JuiceFS	✅ POSIX-compatible ✅ Highly scalable ✅ Multi-AZ availability ✅ Caching capabilities ✅ S3 as backend	❌ Very high throughput cost ❌ Management overhead ❌ Very slow cleanup	🟢 Workloads involving very large files
EFS	✅ POSIX-compatible ✅ Auto-scaling ✅ High performance ✅ Moderate throughput cost	❌ Management overhead ❌ Zone in/out costs with multi-az deployments	🟢 Long running projects with variable I/O needs
FSX	✅ POSIX-compatible ✅ High performance ✅ Lowest per-TB use cost	❌ Good initial size estimate required ❌ Management overhead ❌ Zone in/out costs with multi-az deployments	🟢 I/O intensive workloads