81–90 of 692 posts
Google charges USD 0,15/GB for egress traffic out of GCP. That's USD 36864 for 240TB. Am I right? EDIT: Actually egress seems to be 0,08. So roughly half of what I wrote.
The article said it was stored in a Google Workspace account, which means it is Google Drive and there are no egress fees.
The title is wrong. He had the option of paying for the space at least for the time that it takes him to download and archive the data himself.
Source? None of the emails shown said anything about buying additional space.
I suspect it links here: https://support.google.com/a/answer/12005619?sjid=1774262812...
The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data" The facts of the article are even less inflammatory. The journalist uploaded 237.22 TB of video to his google drive when the "unlimited" plan existed. When google phased out the unlimited plan, he's not paying fo…
Very poor communication from Google.
1) Physical Media that YOU physically own & control. 2) Off-Site Backups Regardless of the threat, whether it is just bad media, house fire, ordinary thieves, or the FBI, relying on some cloud service as your only backup is a plan to fail. If it is a threat if someone reads the backups, encrypt. Sure, as a supplemental convenience, use Google or something. But as the only backup of your life's work? I feel really bad…
I agree with having offsite backup. But for 250 TB that is not that easy or cheap. One disk of family pictures you can give to a family member.
> And, yes, some people have asked why Tim doesn’t have other backups around, but (again) the FBI took all of his shit. I was about to say 'you should have other backups', but the FBI is a very powerful persistent threat, and might be the more important problem.
Seems ludicrous that they can get a warrant to take everything if he really was just hitting URLs.
The actual headline is slightly less inflammatory: "Google Promises Unlimited Cloud Storage; Then Cancels Plan; Then Tells Journalist His Life’s Work Will Be Deleted Without Enough Time To Transfer The Data" The facts of the article are even less inflammatory. The journalist uploaded 237.22 TB of video to his google drive when the "unlimited" plan existed. When google phased out the unlimited plan, he's not paying fo…
This is all reasonable but you missed the bit where they gave him only seven days' notice.
They were moved to a new storage subscription in mid-2022 and while they were over the limits, Google ignored it up to this point.
This is one of the reasons i dont like cloud. I only use it for (encrypted) backups and temporary sharing. Not for important stuff. Also i dont want my account or data to be randomly deleted due to vague terms and conditions or policies.
the problem is that many people dont use it as a backup. In a backup scenario, you are immune to these things, because you still have your primary copy. It's annoying yes, but in a backup you can always afford to lose the backup with no problem. But many people treat these solutions as an extension of their hard drive. A physical analogy is putting your books into a Shurguard/self storage. Thats not a backup, that's…
The distinction is important if you want to rely on more than luck to keep your data safe.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I trust cloud just fine--I just don't trust unsustainable business models. You never know what some beancounter at a megacorp thinks is "sustainable". Putting your data in the hands of a third party is certainly convenient, but shouldn't be relied on if you care about the data sticking around.
You never know when you'll have a fire, software bug, or critical disk failure. It's at least as good of a backup location as any other.