3 ms·

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

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.

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.