4 ms·

You can't compare an external HD in a safe deposity box to an online archival solution. It is just apples and oranges.

by amalag 14y ago

danso 14y ago
But this isn't just any online archival solution, it's Glacier, which is being positioned as a last-resort place for files. Online storage services are useful for continual syncing, which using an external drive would be inconvenient for (if that drive was stored off site). Glacier is for files that you aren't likely to access again for months-or-years-on-end, unless there's an emergency or you're doing something bespoke, like making a family photo album and need to go back through all your files again. So filling up an external drive and keeping it off-site and using Glacier is not as much apples and oranges.
- sreitshamer 14y ago
  (I'm the guy behind Arq) It's also useful as a second-tier backup. If you use Time Machine or SuperDuper you may never need to retrieve your Arq backups, but it's nice to know it's there in case your house burns down or somebody steals your computer + hard drives.
  - danso 14y ago
    BTW, I'm not dissing on your product at all (and apologize for going off on a tangent). It could be that Arq is the glue that makes Glacier far more superior than any kind of personal storage solution. I'm just bickering about the cost of Glacier alone...but otherwise, I think it's great to have a Glacier-accessible option.
    - sreitshamer 14y ago
      I didn't take it as a criticism of Arq. I wish costs were lower as well. On the other hand, I see there's a big difference between a hard drive vs bottomless storage that's remote, replicated, durable, and "always" accessible, so the cost doesn't seem so high to me. I've been of the opinion for a while now that the safest way to store bits is on spinning hard drives -- safer than DVD, tape, turned-off hard drives.
  - rscale 14y ago
    This is exactly the application I considered upon seeing this article. I'm planning to loop back and investigate how restoration would work, but it seems like a potentially great way to have another layer of backup.

You can't compare an external HD in a safe deposity box to an online archival solution. It is just apples and oranges.

by amalag 14y ago

You can't compare an external HD in a safe deposity box to an online archival solution. It is just apples and oranges.

danso 14y ago

But this isn't just any online archival solution, it's Glacier, which is being positioned as a last-resort place for files. Online storage services are useful for continual syncing, which using an external drive would be inconvenient for (if that drive was stored off site). Glacier is for files that you aren't likely to access again for months-or-years-on-end, unless there's an emergency or you're doing something bespoke, like making a family photo album and need to go back through all your files again. So filling up an external drive and keeping it off-site and using Glacier is not as much apples and oranges.

sreitshamer 14y ago
(I'm the guy behind Arq) It's also useful as a second-tier backup. If you use Time Machine or SuperDuper you may never need to retrieve your Arq backups, but it's nice to know it's there in case your house burns down or somebody steals your computer + hard drives.
- danso 14y ago
  BTW, I'm not dissing on your product at all (and apologize for going off on a tangent). It could be that Arq is the glue that makes Glacier far more superior than any kind of personal storage solution. I'm just bickering about the cost of Glacier alone...but otherwise, I think it's great to have a Glacier-accessible option.
  - sreitshamer 14y ago
    I didn't take it as a criticism of Arq. I wish costs were lower as well. On the other hand, I see there's a big difference between a hard drive vs bottomless storage that's remote, replicated, durable, and "always" accessible, so the cost doesn't seem so high to me. I've been of the opinion for a while now that the safest way to store bits is on spinning hard drives -- safer than DVD, tape, turned-off hard drives.
- rscale 14y ago
  This is exactly the application I considered upon seeing this article. I'm planning to loop back and investigate how restoration would work, but it seems like a potentially great way to have another layer of backup.