4 ms·
No, you're right... even more in the case of 999GB $ echo $(( (8 * 999) / 100 )) 79 79 dollars/month I have a home made solution for personal disaste
by txutxu 10y ago
No, you're right... even more in the case of 999GB
$ echo $(( (8 * 999) / 100 ))
79
79 dollars/month
I have a home made solution for personal disaster recovery, which is 30€/month in Hetzner (2TB storage, no bandwidth limit) + 6€/month in OVH (same capacity, less CPU and ram, but same storage/bandwidth conditions)...
For me the difference, is not only in the price, but in who has "root access" over the data. Remote backups in third party storage, by definition, should be encrypted. Using rsync almost implies that the remote will be unencrypted (or efficiency will be lost). But we're in the age of "Virtual PRIVATE network THIRD PARTY services" nonsense... so it's hard that nowadays operators understand those principles.
- viraptor 10y ago> Using rsync almost implies that the remote will be unencrypted Not sure if you meant the protocol or the service rsync, but neither one implies you store unencrypted data.
- txutxu 10y agoNor the protocol neither the service, but the data. If you're going to encrypt all the backup locally before send it to rsync.net, tomorrow you will need to transfer all the GB again, even if just one bit did change...
- viraptor 10y agoThat depends completely on the encryption mode. This could get a full technical explanation of different modes and architectures, but in short: you probably know that if you use full disk exception, you don't rewrite the whole disk just because one bit changed. There are many ways to keep the data encrypted without relying on other blocks content.