5 ms·
If you use terabytes of storage on consumer oriented free or nearly free services you are going to get burned sooner or later. Switch to b2 or s3. Your data wil
by federona 6y ago
If you use terabytes of storage on consumer oriented free or nearly free services you are going to get burned sooner or later. Switch to b2 or s3. Your data will be there for a much longer time. b2 costs $5/terabyte. If you don't access this stuff, it's probably at most $10 - $20/mo.
- deleted 6y ago[deleted]
- angrais 6y agoSorry if this is a stupid question, but if you don't access data often, why not just buy an external HDD of say 10TB or such? Yeah, it's possible that data may fail, but is quite unlikely particular if you're not using it often.
- federona 6y agoRemote storage, redundancy, and portability. At $5/mo/tb. you can still access any of it anytime you want, you just pay for what you actually download.
- gruez 6y agoshucked hard drives go for around $15/TB on sale. Buy three for redundancy and it's $45/TB. The break-even point for that setup would be 9 months.
- eru 6y agoWell, plus a lot of hassle.
- dwohnitmok 6y agoYou're also paying for spatial distance and independence. Redundant backups in the same location can all fail together. See https://youtu.be/OAI8S2houW4?t=285 https://youtu.be/OAI8S2houW4?t=285 for one amusing case.
- jhoechtl 6y agoIpfs eventually.
- secfirstmd 6y agoYeh or a cheap Synology NAS or similar. Remotely accessible, raided, simple to setup.
- dehrmann 6y agoHouse fires, power surges, theft, natural disasters.
- jrockway 6y agoI'm not really looking for archival storage or disaster recovery. After all, the 80MP scans are just low-resolution copies of the originals. I have hard drives for local storage. Yes, if my house burns down I lose the scans and the negatives, but I don't care enough to spend money on it. The reason I used Google Photos was for one-click sharing. I could make a link, and viewers could pan and zoom and see all the details through a pleasant web interface. S3 doesn't do per-photo per-user access controls, and doesn't have a user interface for sharing or viewing. It's object storage, not photo sharing. As object storage, it's a lot more expensive than negatives in a binder, but about as useful.
- federona 6y agoIt would not be hard maybe a week or two of hacking to make such an interface on top of an object store if you were motivated. A simple php or python app with a time limited key stored in a db of some sort. There though are already open source free apps that do provide user management, etc. If you are looking for an ideal solution, but you have to pay for it with money or time.
- gerash 6y agoIt would be a nice exercise but relying on it doesn't make sense to me. We had to write a text editor in our first semester of our CS undergrad program. I'm not going to use my own text editor in favor of say MS word or Google doc.
- federona 6y agoYour data is secure on b2, it's simply an interface. Code is on github. DB should be dumped and saved to b2 daily. Not really unreliable.
- eru 6y agoA week of coding is a long time, and you have to keep it up to date. (It's basically a quarter of a month of salary. That's a lot of money.) Depending on contracts with an employer, there might be legal hassles as well.
- secfirstmd 6y agoInteresting use case for Sia of Skynet etc. Something like about 3 dollars a terabyte at the moment.