3 ms·

If they lose your data, yes, that's one thing. But if the 3 seconds becomes 6 seconds... Or the price goes up... Or they announce they're end-of-life'ing the

If they lose your data, yes, that's one thing. But if the 3 seconds becomes 6 seconds... Or the price goes up... Or they announce they're end-of-life'ing the product... Just move your data somewhere else. Sure, it'd be inconvenient (and maybe expensive) to move. So, you balance all of that out in your mind, and maybe this is the right service for you, and maybe it's not.

bigiain 12y ago
I'm not even sure it'd be "expensive to move". Are people _really_ considering using this (or Glacier/rsync.net/whatever) as their _only_ copy of their data? I can't imagine looking my boss/customers in the eye and saying "We're going to have multiple terabytes of mission critical business data, and it's all going to live _only_ on AWS/Google/Cloud-service-de-jour!" If I lose my AWS Glacier stored data (or Amazon bump the prices intolerably), I'll upload it to a competitor _from my local copies_... Admittedly, I've only had to deal with storage topping out in the tens of terabytes range, so I've never needed to go beyond a dozen or two consumer-grade drives to keep a pair of rsynced copies locally - but I think that same kind of techniques scale all the way out to building your own Backblaze style storage pod if needed.
- VikingCoder 12y ago
  In a word: yes. You're thinking about data that can't be lost, or your customers are screwed. Not all data is like that. Log files come to mind. They're _nice_ to archive for a long time, but in many businesses, they're certainly not _critical_ to archive for a long time. Intermediate files, too. You retain the original files in secured storage. But because the intermediate files are large and expensive to re-create, you keep them here in AWS.