3 ms·

I've thought about doing this a lot. I have a solid and stable 20 Mb connection at home, only have had ~2 hours of downtime this year. The thing is... I don't

I've thought about doing this a lot. I have a solid and stable 20 Mb connection at home, only have had ~2 hours of downtime this year. The thing is... I don't want to basically trap myself into AWS or Dropbox. I run a 6Tb array like you, and kinda set up my own cloud, drag and drop, etc. I don't think I'd ever give it up because: 1) It's cheaper to run myself (long term) - I'd have to consistently pay someone else ever increasing amounts to store data (which seems dumb since storage gets cheaper every year, their service doesn't). 2) Security - I don't want anyone to have access to those files but me. I'm 100% sure Amazon or Google would be able to access those files if ordered too by a government. Hell, they might do it without being ordered, who knows what's happened since Snowden. 3) Ease of use - my setup is based on a local network (as well as an ssh component). Basically, my setup works like Dropbox. The only drawback is no mobile component. If I want to change that I have access to all the parts and can do what I want. With AWS (which I use all day for work) I cant swap out a drive or stream a movie to my TV, phone, or desktop with a click.

010a 10y ago
Hosting yourself is still way cheaper. But services like S3 do get cheaper. When S3 was released in 2006, it cost $0.150/gb*month. That price underwent a half-dozen or so cuts every couple years to reach its current price of $0.03. Its actually been that price for about 2.5 years now. With competition from Google, Microsoft, and Backblaze, its possible we could see a push toward even cheaper prices before too long. As for security, S3 does support SSE at rest with a user-provided encryption key. So you're good to go there.
dawnerd 10y ago
I've got just about 60TB in my apartment with gigabit and I wouldn't consider moving them to the cloud. Way too risky for me. Now I will say, if I could trust a cloud service that wouldn't charge a ton of money for 60+tb then I would jump on it.
boulos 10y ago
On security, I'd like to point out that GCS now supports Customer Supplied Encryption Keys [0]. If you lose your key, we can't help you. Nobody can just unwrap your encrypted data. On cost, I'm using Nearline myself ($.01/GB/month so about $10/TB/month) as an offsite backup of my home NAS setup. Paying for actual bytes stored instead of bytes of capacity gets you at least 20% (raid overhead) but honestly closer to 50% or more depending on how full you are. The poster above had about 3 TiB apparently which works out to $30/month. That's pretty good for an unthrottled replicated storage system offsite. (And like you, I'm considering making my media directly read-only available via App Engine or something, because once you're talking about 1+ TiB of photos all photo hosting sites fall over). Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud. [0] https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/encryption https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/encryption

010a 10y ago

Hosting yourself is still way cheaper. But services like S3 do get cheaper. When S3 was released in 2006, it cost $0.150/gb*month. That price underwent a half-dozen or so cuts every couple years to reach its current price of $0.03. Its actually been that price for about 2.5 years now. With competition from Google, Microsoft, and Backblaze, its possible we could see a push toward even cheaper prices before too long. As for security, S3 does support SSE at rest with a user-provided encryption key. So you're good to go there.

dawnerd 10y ago

I've got just about 60TB in my apartment with gigabit and I wouldn't consider moving them to the cloud. Way too risky for me. Now I will say, if I could trust a cloud service that wouldn't charge a ton of money for 60+tb then I would jump on it.

boulos 10y ago

On security, I'd like to point out that GCS now supports Customer Supplied Encryption Keys [0]. If you lose your key, we can't help you. Nobody can just unwrap your encrypted data. On cost, I'm using Nearline myself ($.01/GB/month so about $10/TB/month) as an offsite backup of my home NAS setup. Paying for actual bytes stored instead of bytes of capacity gets you at least 20% (raid overhead) but honestly closer to 50% or more depending on how full you are. The poster above had about 3 TiB apparently which works out to $30/month. That's pretty good for an unthrottled replicated storage system offsite. (And like you, I'm considering making my media directly read-only available via App Engine or something, because once you're talking about 1+ TiB of photos all photo hosting sites fall over). Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud. [0] https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/encryption https://cloud.google.com/storage/docs/encryption