3 ms·
At 0.03 (1tb = $30/mo) it's still much more expensive than pretty much every other service mentioned in this thread.
by rendaw 10y ago
At 0.03 (1tb = $30/mo) it's still much more expensive than pretty much every other service mentioned in this thread.
- StavrosK 10y agoYes but it's the only service that supports running the attic/borg server :(
- rsync 10y agoWe're also the only service that allows you to 'zfs send' to a remote zpool.
- dom0 10y agoWell, pretty much any BSD/Linux storage server can run it; today even low-end appliances can do it (with some patience - no prebuilt ARM binaries), and of course any kind of server you can rent. Borg 1.2 (~end of 2017, early 2018 perhaps -- wild guess) will include pluggable transfer/storage backends (certainty >98 %).
- e12e 10y agoI was surprised to learn about amazon cloud drive which is "unlimited" - which probably means they'll randomly turn it off if you actually use it - free egress traffic makes it much cheaper than s3. Worth nothing that rsync.net pricing includes transfer: "No other costs. No contracts. All transfer/bandwidth/usage is free.". Looking at https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html - all services charge more than 3 cents/gb if you actually need to restore from backup. Now, that doesn't mean rsync.net isn't expensive for many use-cases -- but not as bad as the up front cost difference appears.
- brandon272 10y agoUsing Amazon Cloud Drive for commercial purposes is prohibited. Also, in my experience it is far less reliable than AWS with random unavailable, slowness and API errors.