2 ms·

I think you really want this to be 2 pieces: something "in the cloud" and a local cache. When you're accessing from your phone (at least when not on your home

I think you really want this to be 2 pieces: something "in the cloud" and a local cache. When you're accessing from your phone (at least when not on your home WiFi) or a computer that's not at your house, it would access the one in the cloud, which would make it faster and not rely on your home Internet working. Most importantly, if your house burns down, you're not totally fucked. So the local device interfaces with TVs and such and keeps you from having to wait for anything to download because it's all cached on there. The cloud piece keeps your data safe and makes it a lot less likely that you won't be able to access your data because your Internet is down. It's possible that you could use Dropbox as the cloud piece and sync mechanism and put together a special server that can do all of the TV/remote control/stereo integration he wants. One issue is that even 100GB may not be enough for everyone.

ttol 16y ago
When you're setting up a central storage for all your home content, 100GB is nothing -- you need to start speaking in terms of TB's. So, for now, the best thing is to do local=realtime, and cloud=selective backup/cache. I've set it up like this using Windows Home Server. I use a few backup services to point it to some of the folders on the server that are important to me (my work folder for instance). WHS has the ability to stream remotely, and I haven't found any speed issues doing so from my local network. I would like what you're describing, which is local=cache and cloud=realtime, except technology isn't there yet -- disk space in the cloud is still too expensive and ISP <-> home bandwidth still too slow/throttled/capped.