4 ms·
Note that, in the event of retrieval, it's not just per GB, it's also per request. Synology has offered Amazon Glacier and S3 as a destination option with Hype
by NBJack 4y ago
Note that, in the event of retrieval, it's not just per GB, it's also per request.
Synology has offered Amazon Glacier and S3 as a destination option with Hyper Backup for years as part of their NAS offerings. Given the available automatic archive feature to move an existing store to Glacier Deep Archive, budget permitting I'd recommend a NAS over this for three reasons:
- Initial setup costs aside, the power draw of a two bay unit like the DS218 (15W at load) would be ~$16/year at peak usage assuming a cost of $0.12/W
- Uploading/syncing your local files to your NAS should be considerably faster, technically 'free', and can be done more frequently as you desire; should you need them, it would also be 'free' to retrieve them locally barring a catastrophic event
- The remote push of the NAS contents to S3/Glacier storage can be done asynchronously of your PC's state (and, to save money, less frequent if you wish), which as you point out could take days; additionally, you can save money given you can reduce the number of requests via automatic archiving/compression
Given how unlikely it is for you to retrieve data from Glacier Deep Archive with such a setup, I highly recommend it. You can still rest knowing your data is offsite.
- hampereddustbin 4y agoBackups should always be tested atleast once to ensure that they do in fact work. Nothing worse than losing data, and discovering that you've been paying a service for naught all those years. This could get prohibitively expensive if you can't replicate your setup in the cloud to test backups within AWS network. Or you could just blindly trust that it'll work. Kind of like schrödingers backup
- willis936 4y agoYou could make a backup of one text file. If you can restore that then you can likely restore something 1E9 larger.
- hampereddustbin 4y agoCould be, but it could also be a fluke. Perhaps everything after the first file-index file is corrupted, and you only restored things from the first one, or perhaps maybe the entire diff-index can be so large that it's not actually recoverable once you grow it to the size you want. There are a myriad of easy-to-miss failure scenarios that don't appear in small-scale tests. Only way to ensure you can restore your backups, is to restore your backups
- mrich 4y ago> Note that, in the event of retrieval, it's not just per GB, it's also per request. This should fall in the free tier in most cases, since the script creates archives of the specified size. The free tier has a few thousand requests for free.
- onychomys 4y ago> Synology has offered Amazon Glacier and S3 as a destination option For the record, QNAP does too, I've got an automated job that backs up any new files it sees every Sunday morning.