Which is why I mentioned frequency of access. For backup purposes, archival storage might be good enough, but if you're looking for an alternative for frequentl

Which is why I mentioned frequency of access. For backup purposes, archival storage might be good enough, but if you're looking for an alternative for frequently accessed content (along the vein of whatever Google Photos replacement) then most clouds will charge you at least an order of magnitude more (even Backblaze would use most of the entire proposed capex budget within a year). But you might still have some value in using Glacier for archival purposes and having somewhat less resilient local copies (e.g. only being able to tolerate a single disk failure, or even just JBOD). Either way, your current approach clearly works for your circumstances, even though it'd be too fiddly for me personally.