Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

googlecloudplatform.blogspot.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

141–150 of 188 posts

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#141

Post by panarky »

t0mas88 wrote: post #137
kryps wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except for the Glacier retrieval fees which can be insane if you choose to retrieve more than 0.17% of your stored data per day. https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/faqs/#How_much_data_can_I_ret...

But if you retrieve the same 1000 GB from Glacier in the same 3 days that Google takes you would pay a 98 dollar retrieval fee. And Amazon would charge 300 dollar less traffic cost ($ 0.09 vs $ 0.12 / GB for 1000 GB) so in the end Glacier is still 202 dollar cheaper AND allows you to retrieve the data much faster if you really have to at a certain price. So Google looks cheaper/simpler, but the amazon model is actual…

Internet egress for 1000 GB is $120 for Google and $90 for Amazon, a difference of $30 not $300.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#142

Post by res0nat0r »

ghshephard wrote: post #115
manacit wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Do you have any information to suggest that the Google Nearline service can handle 10PB?

It's safe to assume this is going to be just like Glacier and S3/Google Storage, ie: unlimited.

Also retrieval speeds increase with your data set size: Note: You should expect 4 MB/s of throughput per TB of data stored as Nearline Storage. This throughput scales linearly with increased storage consumption. For example, storing 3 TB of data would guarantee 12 MB/s of throughput, while storing 100 TB of data would provide users with 400 MB/s of throughput.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#143

Post by AceJohnny2 »

Siliticxx wrote: post #124
AceJohnny2 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thanks for the detailed breakdown, that's really interesting! Sounds like you were bitten by this? :)

Ok. I have to this to this. i'm sorry. I guess he would say he was... sunglasses FROSTBITTEN YEAH!

I understand, but please go stand in the corner there and think about what you've done.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#144

Post by bkruse »

I own a big wholesale telco that does tons of data center business and bandwidth. Of course, margins are super thin so we need great pricing. We are no Google, but we can achieve the same pricing, including the cost of bandwidth (that is 9-9s of durability and no spin-up time, which is where the 3-seconds come from)

Maybe I should start my own service to harness all this infrastructure with something like swift!

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#145

Post by russell_h »

angularly wrote: post #109
sp332 wrote: post #21

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?

Hm yeah, I must admit I have a hard time understanding the high pricing on cloud storage. I always end up comparing to something like OVH storage servers, and cloud storage seems way overpriced..

Based on the prices I can see on OVH's website you're not going to be able to hit 1c/gigabyte with many nines of durability. And thats ignoring the cost of operating the service yourself.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#146

Post by dublinben »

pbowyer wrote: post #140
berberous wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Backblaze lets you add a personal encryption key. I guess they could log that key when you try to decrypt and restore, although I trust they don't. I suppose the NSA probably gets the key when it gets transmitted, but I don't really care. Am I missing something here? If Backblaze's encryption implementation is substantially worse, I may switch.

Can anyone comment how Crashplan stacks up vs Backblaze here? I'm leaning towards it as it'll save the data for more than 30 days after deletion, and security's another factor in my choice.

It's much more flexible in terms of external drives, and deleted files.

You can also set multiple backup locations, by sharing space on your other computers.

They have a proprietary Java client, but it runs cross platform. It's completely painless to add your own encryption key to all backups.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#147

Post by acdha »

hobarrera wrote: post #125
pjc50 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Arq would be exactly what I wanted if it wasn't Mac-only, and preferably open source.

It's also extremely expensive. I can put some effort for 5 USD per month for storage, but 40 USD upfront is prohibitive for me.

The cost of one dinner out is prohibitive? Just testing a backup solution alone would cost more than that, much less rolling your own, unless your time is worth considerably less than $40/hour.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#148

Post by juliangregorian »

pbreit wrote: post #99
texthompson wrote: post #82

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)?

Easy there Ayn Rand.

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#149

Post by Dylan16807 »

jacquesm wrote: post #90
jlebar wrote: post #88

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.

Do you have data you would like to have an extra copy of, but it wouldn't kill you to lose that single copy?

Re: Introducing Google Cloud Storage Nearline

#150

Post by wyldfire »

The transport for this service is HTTP? I imagine most competitors use that as well, right? How does encoding factor in here? I have to transcode my data to base64 in order to put it in or take it out, I assume? I "know" I'd only get billed for the data stored as the original octet/binary encoding. But what about the egress fees? Encoded or decoded data is the input for the billing?
Post reply on HN