5 ms·
Wouldn't Backblaze be much cheaper for that?
by krick 3y ago
Wouldn'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.