3 ms·

Frankly I'd love to have some type of Google/Dropbox VFS where I could store unlimited TB's of my movies connected to my kodi player and it would just transpare

Frankly I'd love to have some type of Google/Dropbox VFS where I could store unlimited TB's of my movies connected to my kodi player and it would just transparently pull the file down like you can do with Dropbox Enterprise, vs. keeping my NAS backup in Glacier Deep Archive. The issue is it would cost 100+$/month to keep it in regular S3, and I'm sure Google is losing money on other folks importing TBs of data to their unlimited service unfortunately.

Dylan16807 6y ago
> The issue is it would cost 100+$/month to keep it in regular S3 Well $100 in S3 is $22 in B2. But that's still only about 4TB.
- res0nat0r 6y ago
  I need to backup ~25 TB, and still even with B2 that is $0.005 * 25,000 = $125.00. All near-realtime backup solutions IMO are too expensive at scale for a home user. The only thing I've found that is a good price is Glacier Deep Archive which is just $1.00/TB, but the only downside is you have to wait ~12-24 hours for a restore.
  - thebean11 6y ago
    The main downside to deep archive is the insane amount of money you will have to pay to get data out of it. They are not very transparent about how much it costs, the retrieval fees aren't bad but the egress fees are killer.
    - res0nat0r 6y ago
      Oh for sure, all egress at $0.09 is still frankly a rip-off and the one thing I do see AWS doing to keep people locked in. If this cheap storage class allowed for real-time reads I'd just store all my data on s3 and mount it via some kind of fuse filesystem and never restore it all for $5000, just stream on demand the movies / mp3s I randomly want to watch and would likely be cheaper in the long run than owning a big nas with hard drives.
  - zepolen 6y ago
    Why not just add a second NAS with 25TB and call it a day? 2 x 16TB disks = $600 4 bay NAS = $300 That would give you cost you 15$/month (over the 5 year hdd life) for 32TB of data, or $0.50/TB/month with super fast loading in event of failure, no egress costs and headway to grow to 64TB if you need it.
    - res0nat0r 6y ago
      Honestly I'd like to not have a NAS at all anymore. I moved from a 4k sqft house to an 800 sqft apartment with a ton of hard drives (I've had this reliable 14 disc tower for years so it has a mix of HD's that could be consolidated if I wanted), so having a NAS sitting in my small closet already is a bit annoying. I'd rather not have anything like that around anymore and just be able to stream from s3 would be great, especially if I want to move across the country / world again and don't have to worry about hardware.
easton 6y ago
This exists: https://github.com/plexdrive/plexdrive https://github.com/plexdrive/plexdrive It mounts your Google Drive as a read only FUSE-style filesystem, so that programs can read from your unlimited storage. It was designed to be used with plex, but Kodi works just as well.

Dylan16807 6y ago

> The issue is it would cost 100+$/month to keep it in regular S3 Well $100 in S3 is $22 in B2. But that's still only about 4TB.

res0nat0r 6y ago
I need to backup ~25 TB, and still even with B2 that is $0.005 * 25,000 = $125.00. All near-realtime backup solutions IMO are too expensive at scale for a home user. The only thing I've found that is a good price is Glacier Deep Archive which is just $1.00/TB, but the only downside is you have to wait ~12-24 hours for a restore.
- thebean11 6y ago
  The main downside to deep archive is the insane amount of money you will have to pay to get data out of it. They are not very transparent about how much it costs, the retrieval fees aren't bad but the egress fees are killer.
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    Oh for sure, all egress at $0.09 is still frankly a rip-off and the one thing I do see AWS doing to keep people locked in. If this cheap storage class allowed for real-time reads I'd just store all my data on s3 and mount it via some kind of fuse filesystem and never restore it all for $5000, just stream on demand the movies / mp3s I randomly want to watch and would likely be cheaper in the long run than owning a big nas with hard drives.
- zepolen 6y ago
  Why not just add a second NAS with 25TB and call it a day? 2 x 16TB disks = $600 4 bay NAS = $300 That would give you cost you 15$/month (over the 5 year hdd life) for 32TB of data, or $0.50/TB/month with super fast loading in event of failure, no egress costs and headway to grow to 64TB if you need it.
  - res0nat0r 6y ago
    Honestly I'd like to not have a NAS at all anymore. I moved from a 4k sqft house to an 800 sqft apartment with a ton of hard drives (I've had this reliable 14 disc tower for years so it has a mix of HD's that could be consolidated if I wanted), so having a NAS sitting in my small closet already is a bit annoying. I'd rather not have anything like that around anymore and just be able to stream from s3 would be great, especially if I want to move across the country / world again and don't have to worry about hardware.

easton 6y ago

This exists: https://github.com/plexdrive/plexdrive https://github.com/plexdrive/plexdrive It mounts your Google Drive as a read only FUSE-style filesystem, so that programs can read from your unlimited storage. It was designed to be used with plex, but Kodi works just as well.