3 ms·
It really isn't. I mean it looks expensive, until you take into account all the dedup and everything it does to reduce the cost. I put in $10 dollars a few ye
by zie 9y ago
It really isn't. I mean it looks expensive, until you take into account all the dedup and everything it does to reduce the cost. I put in $10 dollars a few years ago, I still have almost a $4 balance ($3.91).
- riobard 9y agoHow much data are you storing?
- zie 9y agonot much obviously, I am only storing critical data in tarsnap. Like others have said, if you are storing large GB's or TB's of data, rsync.net or something may be a better solution.
- SCdF 9y agoIt depends on what you're backing up. If you're generating a lot of unique non-dedupable assets (eg you're a photographer who keeps their raws) it quickly becomes very expensive. Don't get me wrong, I love tarsnap and used to use it, but for a lot of workloads it does not compete on price.
- msh 9y agoWell I guess it depends on what you store. I am backing up 1.5 terabyte of photos and videos which can't be compressed or dedup that much so in this case it would be more expensive that many other solutions.