Amazon Glacier Offers Inexpensive Data Archiving

H

HardOCP News

[H] News
Joined
Dec 31, 1969
Messages
0
Amazon is now offering a low-cost storage service for data archiving and backup called Amazon Glacier. What do you guys think of the service and prices?

Amazon Glacier is an extremely low-cost, pay-as-you-go storage service that can cost as little as $0.01 per gigabyte per month. With Amazon Glacier, there are no upfront capital commitments and all ongoing operational expenses are included in the price. You save money by paying only for what you use.
Click to expand...
 
Not a bad idea, but worthless to me when my upload speed sucks to bad.

Also, there is a slightly hidden cost for downloading your data - $60 to download 500GB, no thanks. I'd rather copy my data to a hard drive and drop it in a safety deposit box.
 
Ouch, yes I agree MrAB54. The Data out pricing could be expensive.

Below are the prices that are listed for storing data in US East (N. Virginia)

Data Transfer Pricing

Region:
Pricing
Data Transfer IN
All data transfer in $0.000 per GB
Data Transfer OUT
First 1 GB / month $0.000 per GB
Up to 10 TB / month $0.120 per GB
Next 40 TB / month $0.090 per GB
Next 100 TB / month $0.070 per GB
Next 350 TB / month $0.050 per GB
 
Backblaze > This. $10.64/mo to store 1024GB on Amazon. $5/mo for truly unlimited storage from Backblaze. And no "download fees" either. Purely as a backup service, Glacier can't compete.
 
I don't know, this actually sounds prettty good. Especially if it can be automatically intregrated into either WHS or Server 2008 to do automatic backups to here. Then you would only need to worry about pulling it down if you had a server crash, as all local machines could be restored from the local files on the server.
 
Amazon and Google are paying the HDD companies off so they can push this stupid cloud shit on us.
 
I was very excited about this when I read about it. It's really the only viable way for me to backup my media archives.... I don't care if I don't have instant access to files...
 
With a name like Glacier, I wonder if data transfer rate is that slow.
 
Crashplan or Backblaze are way, way cheaper and much more convenient than this Amazon solution.

I've got 7 TB stored as backup in the cloud. Crashplan costs $2.92/mo and Backblaze costs $3.96/mo for this. It would cost me $70/mo with Amazon Glacier.

Plus Glacier has additional costs to access your data as well as a few hours before your data can even be made available.

Cashplan and Backblaze provide access to your data 24/7 through the backup client, a web browser, or with Crashplan, even Android or iOS.

The only time Amazon Glacier would be cheaper is if you are only backing up 1 - 291 GB for it to be cheaper to store than Crashplan. Though it still seems somewhat inconvenient for data access and lack of features like data deduplication, client-side encryption and file versioning. It would depend on the Amazon upload clients that were created though that don't even exist yet as Glacier is just an API right now.

Services like Crashplan just have too much going for them over this that I cannot really see the value in this new service.
 
It's too bad no one told the DEA about this before they deleted 2 TB of evidence. :)

Vicinity said:
Amazon and Google are paying the HDD companies off so they can push this stupid cloud shit on us.
Click to expand...

Huh? I agree that Google is creepy and invasive, but I dunno if they're bribing hard drive companies.
 
Yeah, the poor DEA could have used the help.... of course, that is for EVIDENCE and the rules of evidence wouldn't allow some hairbrain 3rd party to be holding on to the info.

The pricing makes no sense, the electricity to keep the drives running cost more than the price.

Either Amazon are idiots, or its a lowball to hook you and then prices will climb much higher down the road.

Not to mention how utterly fucked up the very concept of "cloud" anything is. It's the technical manifestation of the RENT SEEKING sickness that has infected our economy.
 
1. Buy Network Attached Storage, or just extra hard drives at cheap prices.
2. ?????
3. Profit without cloud bullshit!
 
Frozen8950 said:
You forgot step 4..
4. House burns down and lose everything.
Click to expand...

Not to mention a NAS unit cost too much for the average household to want to buy one. Most would rather pick up an external USB drive.
 
Fire is the motivator here for onsite backups.

Sometimes I think digging a hole in the backyard and setting up a vault with storage space would be the way to protect that must keep data. Trade fire damage for water damage.

Seems like there are better services out there than this though.
 
For me cost is a reason to not use a NAS or USB backup. My server has a 10TB array currently and it grows by another drive each year or so.

At current drive prices it would cost me $560 for the drives alone to backup my server. Then I have to go through the hassle of setting up some way to keep the drives somewhat accessible so I can easily add and sync new data that I get daily to the backup set. I almost need a whole second server to do backup.

And then as everyone has mentioned, that doesn't help against fires, natural disasters, theft, etc.

For $35 a year I can get unlimited storage with Crashplan. All I have to do is install the client on my server and let it run. There is no messing with configurations, or syncing settings and stuff.

I don't have to ever pay to buy more drives or pay for the electricity to operate it.

I'm a lot safer from fire, natural disasters, theft, etc with Crashplan. It would take 16 years of paying for Crashplan to break even with the cost of buying my own drives to do backup.

There is just no comparison, nothing is as cheap, reliable, convenient and safe as a good cloud backup service.

There are so many added benefits. One that I didn't even touch on yet is that I have access to all my data on the Crashplan servers from anywhere i may be. Yes, I can remotely access my server, but its a lot slower than just accessing my data on Crashplan. Their upload speed is much, much faster than mine.
 
I would rather buy a hard drive and not have to worry about up/down loading any of it. Especially with the bandwidth caps these days.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top