101–110 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/
Arq would be exactly what I wanted if it wasn't Mac-only, and preferably open source.
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.
Once it has an SLA, I can use my tool to work with valuable data.
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.
Don't place all your eggs in the same basket.
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.
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?
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.
You can store 1 Pb and get 4000 MB/s
And at 3MB/s per TB it will always take over 3 days to retrieve all of your data. The 2-5 second retrieval latency is irrelevant when you're going to be waiting for 3 days...
> You should expect 4 MB/s of throughput per TB of data stored as Nearline Storage.
But still, you are correct in that it will take about 1TB / 4MB/s = 2.9d to retrieve all your data.
If you need the ability to do a restore faster than this, then you need to pay more for storage, is all. For many of us, waiting 3d to recover from a catastrophic failure isn't a big deal.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> 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.
"I pay for support. I pay for liability. If something goes haywire with my backups, I have a phone number I can call" 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.
A more likely scenario is that the data is not lost, but my mother (or whoever is calling them) simply has things misconfigured. These companies _do_ provide useful support. Support that they're not going to get if they backup to a developer oriented service directly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You can store 1 Pb and get 4000 MB/s
And at 3MB/s per TB it will always take over 3 days to retrieve all of your data. The 2-5 second retrieval latency is irrelevant when you're going to be waiting for 3 days...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's a bit apples to oranges comparison. Dropbox is a consumer product, like Google Drive. Nearline is targeted to app developers and enterprises
Exactly, so why would the lower-level service aimed at big slow transfers be more expensive than a full-featured product?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Nobody is placing restrictions, but it's understandable if people are skeptical.
Praise be the skeptical! It allows the courageous easy advantages. SLAs are almost worthless. And, really, has Google ever retired something like this (i.e., not an acquisition, not Google Reader, etc)?
And what do you mean by "something like this?"
Google has retired plenty of products over the years. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Google_products
Whether or not those fit your definition of "something like this" is up to you, I guess.