4 ms·
That seems too costly for even large businesses that don't care. When you lose data, you want it back fast. In this case, the faster you take it back the more i
by biturd 14y ago
That seems too costly for even large businesses that don't care. When you lose data, you want it back fast. In this case, the faster you take it back the more it costs.
I wonder why they don't use S3. Is it not reliable enough? The charging infrastructure at least is simpler to figure out.
- StavrosK 14y agoSure, it's too costly for large businesses, but it's not too costly for me, I just want to restore my 100 GB photo/video collection if all other backups fail, I don't care if it takes two days as long as it's all there.
- Spooky23 14y agoThere is a huge market for data that needs to be retained indefinitely, or for some long period of time. Oftentimes this is related to compliance. The frequency that the data is accessed is incredibly small -- or even zero. For example, in several states, all records relating to a minor in state custody, an adoption, or receiving certain nbenefits must be kept for 26 years after the minor turns 18. Today, states are either storing this data on tape, or paying some government contractor to do it for them -- at an expense several times that of Glacier. Another example is litigation holds. One former employer was forced to hold around a petabyte of data 7 years for a complex civil suit, because... A judge said so. In that case, the high cost of retrieval may be a benefit, because the plaintiff would be footing the bill.