91–100 of 188 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
For disaster recovery 3 days might mean the end of your business.
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).
If you're willing to pay more for faster retrieval I guess you could store e.g. 5TB of random data to get a fast "base speed"- cutting those 3 days down to 12 hours.
The same egress and data transfer charges as for Google Cloud Storage Standard / DRA. Can transfer the data from Standard to Nearline bucket for free until Jun, 11 - https://cloud.google.com/storage/pricing#network-regions
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/
> the last excuse for not using self-hosted, secure backup tools like Arq[1] disappears. Hardly. I pay for support. I pay for liability. If something goes haywire with my backups, I have a phone number I can call. A number that's not software developer/ sys admin who has no idea why I'm calling about my mom's missing holiday photos.
Google "{service} lost all of my data" and see what kind of support these people got. I get that it gives you warm fuzzies but when these companies loose all of your data, you have almost no recourse.
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).
If you're willing to pay more for faster retrieval I guess you could store e.g. 5TB of random data to get a fast "base speed"- cutting those 3 days down to 12 hours.
This particular story is about a Google service that is an extremely late entrant into the market (Amazon Glacier, etc) and offers almost nothing new. I'm not saying it's a bad product or not useful to folks, but it's not, by any means, groundbreaking. I'd much rather see the top spot of HN occupied by some startup's new idea or a researcher's new findings.
I also don't mean to imply that "big corporate" == bad. Certain products -- self driving cars, Space X automated landings, etc -- are absolutely worthy of our attention and discussion. I just hope that people would think twice before upvoting a story merely because it's from Google.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> But my valuable data? Surely the whole point of not having an SLA (and indeed the whole point of calling it a "beta") is so that you don't trust it with your valuable data. I'm sure it will have an SLA soon enough.
I don't have a whole lot of worthless data.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If we place too many restrictions on how companies should offer preview releases, they'll just stop entirely. Are you suggesting that even those comfortable taking on risk to get a sneak peak should be forced to wait for general availability?
Nobody is placing restrictions, but it's understandable if people are skeptical.
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/
How is using Arq+Nearline better than Backlaze (client and storage)? Not really "self hosted" if you're still dumping the data to a cloud provider. Even if you configure Arq to use your own "cloud" (cost of that notwithstanding) I don't think it's an overall net improvement.