71–80 of 188 posts
This is a nail in the coffin of the SaaS backup industry (Backblaze, RescuePlan, etc.). With storage becoming essentially free the last excuse for not using self-hosted, secure backup tools like Arq[1] disappears. [1] http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/
I'm adding support for creating nearline buckets in Arq right now.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
http://xkcd.com/1494/ The unusual thing about this market is that by constantly improving the price point of their product but keeping their profit margins the same, AWS has forced every competitor in it to actually compete at the limits of their capability - so any scheme like this that got any serious traction would presumably be self-undermining. The economists will have considered all of the unused provided capac…
I don't know why you think so. AWS is not very price competitive. I make good money consulting on setup of more cost-effective alternatives to things like S3. The large cloud providers sell on brand recognition, convenience and trust, not cost. They may compete with each other on cost to try to cannibalise each others markets, but they're not even close to pushing the envelope on cost efficiency in terms of the price…
If you have your own servers I can see running zfs and replicating snapshots every few minutes to a remote machine but if you aren't, what else is competitive?
I do agree that a lot of AWS services aren't cost effective though, especially at any sort of non trivial scale.
So should I believe in Google's good-will? I would be fine trying out some services, which are in Google Beta. But my valuable data? They should have a SLA right from the start to gain the user's trust.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
At least with Glacier I get the option of retrieving faster. Nearline is going to take more than 3 DAYS to retrieve my data if I only have 1TB stored (3MB/s).
For many people waiting 3 days is more attractive than paying the ~$1000 that it would cost to retrieve it in one day from Glacier.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Exactly, so why would the lower-level service aimed at big slow transfers be more expensive than a full-featured product?
There's a few reasons: * Dropbox doesn't guarantee 11 9s like this service does - when I'm backing critical data up, I want to make sure it's _there_. * Dropbox likely wouldn't take kindly to me storing 10PB, whereas that is what this service is designed for. * I've got SLAs and guaranteed speeds with this, Dropbox isn't designed for me to suddenly download 10PB very quickly.
This is a nail in the coffin of the SaaS backup industry (Backblaze, RescuePlan, etc.). With storage becoming essentially free the last excuse for not using self-hosted, secure backup tools like Arq[1] disappears. [1] http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/
No thinking about installing software (e.g., Arq, and finding something equivalent for Windows), keeping that software up to date, checking that it's up and running properly, etc. (BackBlaze tells me when it hasn't been able to reach a given machine after some period.)
So, no, I think the SaaS backup industry has nothing to fear from cheap online storage, at least for ordinary folk. (Hackers are a vanishingly small segment of that market.)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Glacier have additional fees depending on how fast you retrieve the data. Honestly I'm not sure what they are because I've never had to use it, but my impression is that these fees could be quite high.
At least with Glacier I get the option of retrieving faster. Nearline is going to take more than 3 DAYS to retrieve my data if I only have 1TB stored (3MB/s).
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know why you think so. AWS is not very price competitive. I make good money consulting on setup of more cost-effective alternatives to things like S3. The large cloud providers sell on brand recognition, convenience and trust, not cost. They may compete with each other on cost to try to cannibalise each others markets, but they're not even close to pushing the envelope on cost efficiency in terms of the price…
Just wondering, what is more cost effective than S3 with the same reliability? If you have your own servers I can see running zfs and replicating snapshots every few minutes to a remote machine but if you aren't, what else is competitive? I do agree that a lot of AWS services aren't cost effective though, especially at any sort of non trivial scale.
This is a nail in the coffin of the SaaS backup industry (Backblaze, RescuePlan, etc.). With storage becoming essentially free the last excuse for not using self-hosted, secure backup tools like Arq[1] disappears. [1] http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/
Quote: "This is a Beta release of Nearline Storage. This feature is not covered by any SLA or deprecation policy and may be subject to backward-incompatible changes." So should I believe in Google's good-will? I would be fine trying out some services, which are in Google Beta. But my valuable data? They should have a SLA right from the start to gain the user's trust.