3 ms·
This sort of data falls under the category of "I might need this someday but I can't figure out why". For the reasons you can't think of, perhaps you might con
by mchannon 10y ago
This sort of data falls under the category of "I might need this someday but I can't figure out why".
For the reasons you can't think of, perhaps you might consider indexing them locally then throwing them onto Glacier. The odds of you needing every single one of them (thus making Glacier cost-prohibitive) are far less than the odds of you needing one at random.
I haven't done the math on how many months of S3 hosting it takes to equal the upload cost once to Glacier, primarily because I don't know how big 1790000 screenshots are.
Alternatively, provided downloading them all to your local desktop doesn't run your S3 bill to Mars, tape drives can still be quite cost-effective ways to store a LOT of data, cheap.
- dangrossman 10y agoHigh resolution uncompressed PNG screenshots should be a couple hundred kilobytes each at most. 1.8 million of 'em would be less than 1TB of data. If you transfer 'em to a temporary EC2 instance (no bandwidth cost) and zip them, it'll probably cost $50 or so in bandwidth to save them locally from there. Then, they'll fit on a <$50 commodity hard drive.
- tomw1808 10y agoyou are both to the point. It is "I might need it sometime, but not now" and it doesn't cost a fortune but it is a pain to download and move around a big bucket of files I don't really need at the moment.