4 ms·
4TB? That's $60 per month. Mmkay. Just use duplicati + cloud cold storage. Way cheaper. Cold storage has a complicated pricing model because it's al-a-carte, b
by waynesonfire 4y ago
4TB? That's $60 per month. Mmkay. Just use duplicati + cloud cold storage. Way cheaper.
Cold storage has a complicated pricing model because it's al-a-carte, but offsite backups tend to be write-once-read-never.
$0.0036 per GB / Month for aws
$0.007 per GB-month for storage for gcs
- easton 4y ago> write-once-read-never Well, if you're being smart, it's going to be write-once-read-sometimes-once because you should be testing your backups every so often. You'd probably want to backup to some kind of service in the middle, then at the end of the month/quarter ship a backup to cold storage.
- kqr 4y agoWay cheaper if all you want is vendor-specific cloud cold storage, yes. If you want a generic hot remote zfs filesystem it's not even a competition.
- waynesonfire 4y agoThe abstraction is duplicati. It's trivial to change the back-end so I'm not sure I'd be too concerned about vendor-lock. If you want a generic remote zfs fs it's going to cost $$$. I have that but it's not offsite.
- mekster 4y agoIf you think duplicati (or pretty much most maybe except Borg) is same as zfs, you're badly wrong. If you don't care about stability or reliability, choose whatever the landing page sells you.
- rsync 4y ago"4TB? That's $60 per month. Mmkay. Just use duplicati + cloud cold storage. Way cheaper." This is random access, live storage - which is not the case with cold storage options such as Glacier. A more fitting comparison would be S3 ... I think you are, in many cases, correct - offsite backups can, indeed, be write-once ... but if you're looking for the very specific efficiencies and features that zfs-send affords you, that will not be the case.