3 ms·
That's exactly what I'm using it for :) I have a primary and backup NAS at home, and a separate archive copy updated weekly offsite locally. Then Glacier is my
by geerlingguy 3y ago
That's exactly what I'm using it for :)
I have a primary and backup NAS at home, and a separate archive copy updated weekly offsite locally. Then Glacier is my "there was a nuclear bomb and my entire city is completely gone" solution.
And in that case, assuming I had survived, I would be willing to pay most anything to get my data back.
- freedomben 3y agoNice, that's a great point and a good use case. I normally try to stay away from AWS (when I have to care about the cost) but I think you've found a case where it makes sense! I've already got backblaze (behind rclone) set up for my backups so adding a glacier archive would be quite easy. Thanks!
- krick 3y agoWouldn't Backblaze be much cheaper for that?
- geerlingguy 3y agoLast time I priced it out, Backblaze was more expensive per GB — note that I'm using Glacier Deep Archive, which is something like an order of magnitude less expensive than plain Glacier-backed buckets. It also incurs a delay of at least 6-12 hours before the first byte of retrieval occurs, when you need to restore. So there are tradeoffs for the price.
- krick 3y agoOh, I see. I'm shamefully ignorant about everything concerning backups, so I just googled "Amazon S3 Glacier" and compared some numbers that pop up to some other providers. > a delay of at least 6-12 hours before the first byte of retrieval occurs Huh. I wonder how it actually works behind the curtains. Do hey actually use HDDs to store all of that, or maybe is there some physical work involved in these 12 hours to retrieve a tape-drive from the archive…
- geerlingguy 3y agoFrom what I remember, Deep Archive uses tape libraries, and retrieval requires a robot fetching tapes quite often, leading to that delay.