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

Amazon Glacier

aws.amazon.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

271–280 of 393 posts

Re: Amazon Glacier

#271

Post by rsync »

moontear wrote: post #129

Crashplan is still cheaper for storage larger than 400GB. Crashplan+ Unlimited is USD 2.92/month if you take the 4 year package. When I upload 300GB to Amazon and pay 0.01 * 300 = USD 3/month. Amazon would be even more expensive for larger amounts of data. Is there some fine print I'm missing with Crashplan unlimited?

Here is why "unlimited" storage offerings should be met with skepticism at best, and probably avoided outright:

http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/11/flat-rate-stora...

They put the provider in an adversarial relationship with the user and give them an incentive to keep you from storing data there. They will make it hard for you to use their service.

Re: Amazon Glacier

#273

Post by brunoqc »

exhilaration wrote: post #261
sreitshamer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking into supporting Glacier in Arq. It sure is cheap -- $10/month for a terabyte.

That's Mac-only, right? Can anyone suggest an equivalent Windows tool for backing up to Amazon?

Jungledisk, Duplicaty (LGPL)

Re: Amazon Glacier

#274

Post by fesja »

sreitshamer wrote: post #160
ghshephard wrote: post #36

I'm a long time user of backblaze, and I'm a big fan of the product - it does a great job of always making sure my working documents are backed up, particularly when I'm traveling overseas, and my laptop is more vulnerable to theft or damage. With that said - Backblaze is optimized for working documents - and the default "exclusion" list makes it clear they don't want to be backing up your "wab~,vmc,vhd,vo1,vo2,vsv,v…

I'm looking into supporting Glacier in Arq. It sure is cheap -- $10/month for a terabyte.

I will start using Arq when it supports Glacier. When will it be ready ;)

Re: Amazon Glacier

#275

Post by rsync »

thebigshane wrote: post #250
arethuza wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Probably what would be required is an array of arrays of separate storage providers and services providing "RAID" on top of these storage providers - and you won't want to trust any of these you'll want a few of them... (hence the array of arrays).

Wow, does any service offer something like that? RAID6 would be pretty interesting across s3, google drive, (hrmm, what else? skydrive? rsync.net?)

leastauthority.com (the Tahoe LAFS folks) are trying to promote the concept of "RAIC" (C=Cloud). I'm not sure what the status of the project is, though...

FWIW, we are happy to support this kind of use, and see our customers doing it in an ad-hoc way every day. We have s3cmd in our environment, and support it. As soon as their is a glacier complement to s3cmd we will put that into place as well, although with the strange traffic and retrieval pricing, I'm not sure how useful folks will find it ...

Re: Amazon Glacier

#276

Post by [deleted] »

tc wrote: post #222

Beware that retrieval fee! The retrieval fee for 3TB could be as high as $22,082 based on my reading of their FAQ [1]. It's not clear to me how they calculate the hourly retrieval rate. Is it based on how fast you download the data once it's available, how much data you request divided by how long it takes them to retrieve it (3.5-4.5 hours), or the size of the archives you request for retrieval in a given hour? This…

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Glacier

#277

Post by sreitshamer »

jordibunster wrote: post #269
sreitshamer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking into supporting Glacier in Arq. It sure is cheap -- $10/month for a terabyte.

I think the key here is not to just provide a toggle for using Glacier instead of S3, but to have the historical snapshots migrated to Glacier from S3 and deleted every 90+ days. I will gladly pay more money for Arq again.

I think it would be more like choosing Glacier instead of S3 on a per-folder basis.

Arq is incremental backup. The data structure is similar to git's http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/s3_data_format.txt

Unless your files change a lot, keeping the latest backup version in S3 and previous versions in Glacier would mean that most of your backup data are still in S3 I think. Right?

Re: Amazon Glacier

#278

Post by [deleted] »

sreitshamer wrote: post #160
ghshephard wrote: post #36

I'm a long time user of backblaze, and I'm a big fan of the product - it does a great job of always making sure my working documents are backed up, particularly when I'm traveling overseas, and my laptop is more vulnerable to theft or damage. With that said - Backblaze is optimized for working documents - and the default "exclusion" list makes it clear they don't want to be backing up your "wab~,vmc,vhd,vo1,vo2,vsv,v…

I'm looking into supporting Glacier in Arq. It sure is cheap -- $10/month for a terabyte.

[deleted]

Re: Amazon Glacier

#279

Post by sreitshamer »

exhilaration wrote: post #261
sreitshamer wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm looking into supporting Glacier in Arq. It sure is cheap -- $10/month for a terabyte.

That's Mac-only, right? Can anyone suggest an equivalent Windows tool for backing up to Amazon?

There's Cloudberry Backup. I haven't used it myself, and I'm told it's not versioned backup, but it backs up to your own AWS account.
Post reply on HN