I ended up paying $150 for a single 60GB download from Amazon Glacier

Re:I ended up paying $150 for a single 60GB download from Am... by barkingcat on Sunday January 17, 2016 @08:06PM (#10921946)

Yes but if you were in this target market you'd likely want your information on your own tape with a reading infrastructure you control.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I ended up paying $150 for a single 60GB download from Am... by Sanddancer on Sunday January 17, 2016 @08:48PM (#10922078)

Depends. Having an in-house key and shipping everything to Amazon encrypted means that you have all the infrastructure there and waiting, and not capable of being read. Additionally, that tape library would need to be stored, and periodically tested so that tapes can be rotated out as needed. Sending that data to a service like glacier means you've shown due diligence, but at the same time, don't need to maintain a schedule of testing every disk every year.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I ended up paying $150 for a single 60GB download from Am... by PhantomGremlin on Monday January 18, 2016 @12:05AM (#10922611)

don't need to maintain a schedule of testing every disk every year.

So you trust Glacier or Google Nearline (or any similar provider) without testing? No testing ever???

I wouldn't feel happy with my critical data floating around in the cloud, without my checking it at least once a year to make sure it really exists.

And once you do start verifying that data, you will incur all sorts of charges to access it.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I ended up paying $150 for a single 60GB download from Am... by vonklaus on Sunday January 17, 2016 @09:40PM (#10922232)

this was what I meant. thanks. You can buy a 5tb hard drive for ~138.00. You could likely buy several of them at discount to get started. As you go forward in time, these will become much cheaper, allowing you to continue purchasing them on demand from the market for much less money.

This allows you to trivially share, copy, move and retrieve that data quickly as well as fully control who has access and when.

I am sure there are use cases for this but in a situation where you have petabyte scale data, it is often the case that you also have the infrastructure to save it. How many places would need to store >5tb of data a week that

* don't have this capability in house

* will almost never need to access it again.

* will not need it in a timely manner, if they do need to access it again.

* don't have the money to implement their dedicated server and storage on site for this purpose.

I am not saying that this rules everyone out, but the prices are so low, and tape must be so annoying, I couldn't imagine why they keep offering this. Obviously, some peopel must be using it but in 2016 with storage prices being so low already, i don't know how many places have this amount of data and meet the above requirements.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:I ended up paying $150 for a single 60GB download from Am... by grogenaut on Monday January 18, 2016 @12:09AM (#10922621)

2 Words: Offsite Backup

[ Parent | on HN ]