3 ms·
Shit... you're right. We should have checked that, we'll have to find a better solution (S3 might work but also might be too expensive).
by jacquesc 14y ago
Shit... you're right. We should have checked that, we'll have to find a better solution (S3 might work but also might be too expensive).
- gsibble 14y agoI've actually been researching this recently. The cheapest I found (better than S3) was a machine at http://www.hetzner.de/ http://www.hetzner.de/ loaded with drives.
- ukd1 14y agoThis also sucks; you have to maintain your own hardware and make the files / blocks redundant. Whilst possible, it's certainly going to add complexity and overheads; RiakCS (http://basho.com/products/riakcs/ http://basho.com/products/riakcs/) springs to mind.
- ukd1 14y agoS3 with RRS would be better, but the economics may not work out. However, unlike normal internet based backups, you can't replace corrupted / lost files sneakily, well not until the next backup-drive arrives. Also, be aware that you'll not be able to de-dupe files across users (this also has issues if you could) as you're encrypted. Also, if the encryption key is different, you won't even be able to do this cross backups...which will suck.
- eps 14y agoWhy don't you keep a drive per customer (in a bank if needs be) and upload it to Glacier for redundancy? Couple it with making a copy of the drive when you drop it in a mail for a customer, and you have two levels of recovery at any given moment, one - instant, another - from Glacier.