8 ms·

Ask HN: Which file storage service would you recommend for the long term?

• philippnagel 11y ago
  Haven't used it, but seems to fit your use case: http://aws.amazon.com/de/glacier/ http://aws.amazon.com/de/glacier/
  • storer 11y ago
    Seeing as I haven't heard of it, it doesn't seem to meet my criteria of being popular enough to be likely to be around in 50 years. EDIT: It's Glacier I haven't heard of, not Amazon.
    • seffignoz 11y ago
      It has the same chance (or maybe higher) to be around in the next 50 years, than the the one in the list you provided. Also check AWS S3 out, it all depends on your use case (eg., do you need to access said files on a regular basis?(S3) or you just want to store them and never access them in the next years (Glacier) ?
    • danso 11y ago
      So...which cloud services are you thinking of that have been around 50 years, for you to be able to establish some kind of rough baseline of what popularity is needed for such longevity? I'm coming up with blanks myself... In any case, I think the criteria of "I haven't heard of it" is a little strict, given you've made an open question asking for advice on what to use...you should be open to the possibility that there are people here with expertise who know of things that you haven't heard of. For example, you don't seem to have heard of Amazon S3, which Dropbox is based off of. Amazon is also the company behind Glacier, and while Amazon is far from being a sure bet of lasting 50 years, it's a good as bet as any company.
    • Veratyr 11y ago
      Dropbox (which you have heard of) is built on top of Amazon S3. Glacier is a sibling product to S3 and similiarly unlikely to disappear.
      • storer 11y ago
        Just because Dropbox uses S3 right now doesn't mean they always will. If S3 goes down, Dropbox will probably just use something else.
        • danso 11y ago
          Honestly curious...what's your knowledge of the company named Amazon? That is, how much smaller do you think Amazon is (by any metric, market cap, revenue, size of engineering operations) compared to Dropbox?
      • akhatri_aus 11y ago
        Dropbox doesn't use S3 anymore. They did initially. That being said S3 is a pretty good solution.
        • kooshball 11y ago
          What do they use now?
          • toomuchtodo 11y ago
            Possibly OpenStack's Swift. Its API-compliantish with S3.
    • mod 11y ago
      You haven't heard of Amazon and their web services? I don't think you can guarantee 50 years, regardless of number of services used. But you'll have plenty of time to offload them before any of these big names shut down. Also, I'd guess this is your best bet for > 50 years.
    • scurvy 11y ago
      You're asking for cloud storage recommendations and haven't heard of Amazon S3?
  • sciurus 11y ago
    Glacier is for cold storage, i.e. files you expect toa ccess rarely, if ever. Retrieving data from it requires a song-and-dance and can be costly. It doesn't meet the criteria "be able to access any of my files any time." http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazonglacier/latest/dev/data-retrieval-policy.html http://docs.aws.amazon.com/amazonglacier/latest/dev/data-ret...
• Veratyr 11y ago
  What to use depends on your use case. Are you looking for backup or are you looking for sync and 'always there'? For the former, I'd recommend using Amazon's Glacier or Google's Nearline storage. If you intend to retrieve your files often, Nearline will do better as the costs are lower and retrieval is faster. You'll likely want to wait until it's out of beta first though, which might take a while. If you don't intend to retrieve them often, Amazon's Glacier might be a good choice. There are also services like CrashPlan and Backblaze that are definitely worth looking into. They're definitely easier to use and CrashPlan at least gives you the option to encrypt. For the latter use case, I'd recommend Google Drive. You can get a ton of storage through Apps for Work Unlimited and there's very little chance of it disappearing in the near future with Google's apparent goal of moving all your data into their cloud.
  • storer 11y ago
    I'm wary of Google products, because they seem to go through radical changes or get killed off pretty regularly. EDIT: same with iCloud (or MobileMe or whatever it was before that)
    • blfr 11y ago
      I highly doubt Google would close a data storage service (like Nearline or Drive) without ample time for users to move elsewhere.
• junto 11y ago
  I use a Synology NAS drive that backs up to Amazon Glacier for an expensive (but invaluable) restore if my NAS drive goes up in a fire. Synology gives me my own private cloud (all major OS and mobile clients) and loads of other benefits as well. I'm very happy with it.
• ic-junk 11y ago
  Another service for $5 / Month Unlimited Cloud Backup is https://www.backblaze.com/ https://www.backblaze.com/ I haven't used it for accessing individual files from backup, just whole drive backup.
  • sp332 11y ago
    It's a little clunky to restore individual files (at least it was a few years back when I used it), but not horrible. I'd be worried about losing files just because it doesn't have an infinite history. If something corrupts your data and you don't notice, the good version will be gone in a few weeks. Over 50 years the chances of that happening add up.
• yarone 11y ago
  I'm a fan of Backblaze. Been using them for about 6 years. They meet all of your requirements. They don't make it particularly easy to access your files from another device (not a great cloud interface like Dropbox), which is probably one way they keep costs low ($5 per month, unlimited storage).
  • leetNightshade 11y ago
    One negative of Backblaze is that they still don't support Linux. I'm not a huge Linux user, but I'd like to have the option, otherwise I'm seriously dis-interested in the service. The more open/options the better.
• kisamoto 11y ago
  I use Arq [https://www.arqbackup.com https://www.arqbackup.com] which is provider dependent and doesn't lock you into a specific cloud like Backblaze or Crashplan. You can set it up to sync to Glacier/S3/Dropbox/GDrive/OneDrive/Local NAS/FTP server or any combination of them if you want to have multiple copies. I get 1TB of OneDrive free with Office365 so backup to that but also to S3 so that if I was to stop using Microsoft I'm not tied down. Has unlimited upload rate; never deletes files; good restore client; can be bought with unlimited upgrades for $60 and at 1TB (without taking into account accessing the data) on S3 you'd pay $30/month | $24/month reduced redundancy or $10/month on glacier for less frequently accessed data. Because it's a bit more expensive I only tend to put absolute essentials (like photos) on S3. Arq does also compress to help save some cost here. Worth mentioning that Arq also encrypts everything client side before transmitting so everything is stored encrypted as well. Might be important for you.
  • jwr 11y ago
    Another vote for Arq if what the OP wants is backup. This lets you pick and switch storage providers. I don't think you should plan on staying with any provider for more than 2-3 years, the landscape changes too fast. Arq lets you be independent.
    • copperx 11y ago
      Aren't the backups now dependent on (1) the storage provider and (2) the Arq software developer? You lose Arq, you lose your backups.
      • tfe 11y ago
        The format Arq uses is open and documented, so that you can restore without having Arq if necessary: https://www.arqbackup.com/s3_data_format.txt https://www.arqbackup.com/s3_data_format.txt And there are tools to help: http://sreitshamer.github.io/arq_restore/ http://sreitshamer.github.io/arq_restore/
      • m_eiman 11y ago
        The format of the backups is specified, so making a replacement should be possible if needed: https://www.arqbackup.com/s3_data_format.txt https://www.arqbackup.com/s3_data_format.txt
• Jedd 11y ago
  How much 'be able to access my files' do you need - constant refreshing, or just the ability to recover? Glacier will give you the latter, for a price, but is designed to be something that you only read from during an emergency. Writes / updates, and storage, are very cheap. Disclaimer - I work for Riverbed, who used to have a lovely product called WhiteWater, subsequently renamed SteelStore and sold to NetApp. This is a backup / archive system that uses whatever 'cloud' (not a word I'm fond of) backend you prefer. Data is de-duplicated at ingress, and encrypted at rest. It would require a local VM, but that's a small matter these days. No idea on pricing. If you're at all inclined, and primarily to address the '50+ years' requirement, you could look at rolling your own solution. Architecture would be (initially) something like a RPi with a 3TB drive - bought and installed at (at least) two friend's places. Perhaps a contra-deal arrangement with them. VPN for security & convenience. LUKS for at-rest encryption. Something sitting on top of rsync (over SSH) for in-transit encryption + file-level deduplication -- I use dirvish[1] for archives that are too large / too binary blobby for git. I've got two family members already doing rsync (using unison[2]) backups over the net to VMs I host that then get dirvished. [1] http://www.dirvish.org http://www.dirvish.org [2] http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/ http://www.cis.upenn.edu/~bcpierce/unison/
• jkot 11y ago
  > My goal is to ... lose none of my files Duplicates. Perhaps two or three online services, plus local disk array at home. Check data integrity every year... Every decade you will have to swap service or two, as companies evolve.
  • stephengillie 11y ago
    Redundant array of independent file services.
    • pyre 11y ago
      RAIFS?
  • balu_ 11y ago
    Any idea how to cleverly check data integrity over some distributed services? (without downloading everyting)
    • tobylane 11y ago
      SSH in and do the checksums yourself.
• sarciszewski 11y ago
  Have you considered S4 by Least Authority? https://leastauthority.com https://leastauthority.com
• zatkin 11y ago
  Based on your criteria, it sounds like you could use physical hard drives to backup to, rather than a service. You should store your files onto an external hard drive and keep the external hard drives in a safe place.
  • mikro2nd 11y ago
    ...multiple copies in mutiple places
    • zatkin 11y ago
      That wasn't part of his criteria, but I understand what you're getting at. Personally, I wouldn't do physical hard drives, but I know others who have done it (and done it well) and are happy.
• leejoramo 11y ago
  The best way to plan for 50 years is to continually have a 1, 5 and 10 year plan. Your 50 year requirement is the real tough problem here. I would have a hard time recommending any of the types of services your are referring to for more than a year at a time. To achieve anything beyond that you need to look for a service that is VERY standards based and portable. You do not mention a need for "backup/restore" or "version history. So lets treat sync & cloud access separately from backup & versioning. File Sync and Cloud Access I think any thing that syncs local files to the cloud will do as long as you don't rely on special features of a specific service. This sort of means that iCloud and S3 are out of the running since neither of them is a cross-platform file directory syncing system. You could keep copies on one or more systems that you control and using the service to provide sync and cloud access. Then if you decided that the service that you are currently use no longer meets your needs, or is out of business, you could easily switch to a different syncing/cloud service. Today I would say that Dropbox is the best solution. Personally, I am beginning to replace Dropbox with BitTorrent Sync and keeping a close eye on syncthing.net. Although, BT Sync doesn't have a web interface, I consider that a plus for privacy, and BT Sync's mobile apps and built in sharing features replace most of what I need from Dropbox's web interface. Backup/Versioning This is where it gets really tricky looking out 50 years. I simply can not recommend thinking out that long term. I think you can look out 10 years at a time, and then make choices for the next 10 years. Something like rdiff-backup with would last at least 10 years, but it doesn't have the easy to access interface. (last I check the radio-backup web interfaces where not very good). Personally, I use a combination of diff-backup and Crashplan pointed at local and remote storage. CrashPlan gives me remote access via the web and apps, and a professionally managed data store. (I feel that while I don't trust others with protecting my data, I don't trust myself 100% either). I also use Arq (with now has a Windows client, and provide an open source code for doing a restore) and backup to a remote site. https://www.crashplan.com https://www.crashplan.com https://www.arqbackup.com https://www.arqbackup.com http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup http://www.nongnu.org/rdiff-backup https://syncthing.net https://syncthing.net https://www.getsync.com https://www.getsync.com
  • baldfat 11y ago
    I have been using Crashplan for around 4 years and I highly recommend it. I bought 4 years worth of storage 2 years ago. I have backups for my own computer and my in-laws. Great deal and great service. Everything points to my Linux NAS and than I backup to CrashPlan.
• msamir 11y ago
  for a person with TB of data and increasing; your condition of 50 years service guaranteed in the future is strange. I may suggest deploying your own service using (owncloud)[https://owncloud.org/ https://owncloud.org/] on your own dedicated servers
  • hrehhf 11y ago
    It worries me that https://owncloud.org https://owncloud.org seems to support only TLS 1.0, not 1.1 or 1.2. I can't speak about their software, but it is not a good sign to see the security warning when I first go to their site. https://www.howsmyssl.com/s/about.html https://www.howsmyssl.com/s/about.html considers TLS 1.0 "Bad". Edit: in their favor, at least they do provide GPG signatures for their downloads.
• yellowapple 11y ago
  > use a service for the next 50 years Probably won't happen. Businesses come and go. Unless you want to be constantly shuffling file storage backends, such a plan will probably end in disaster. If you want something with the requirements you describe, you'd be better off self-hosting. I'd set up two servers - one in your house or office or what have you, and a second in some further-away location (perhaps a relative's house). The "servers" could be as simple as ordinary desktops with a bunch of Western Digital Red drives. Pop your operating system of choice on them, set them up with some way to transfer files (I personally just SFTP important files to an OpenBSD box; once I find a suitable secondary location, I'll probably set up another one and have the first one pump the contents of its backup folder to the second one on a daily basis with something like rsync), and be done with it. The downside is that now you have to manage the hardware side and the software side of things, but at least now you have some assurance that - so long as you actively maintain your backup server(s) - your data will be safely backed up.
• rip747 11y ago
  For my personal stuff I just use Google Drive. I don't think that Google is going to ever abandon it since its tied into all their products as the storage solution. For my servers, I've been wanting _something_ that I can use Amazon S3 with. Just did a search and found out about CloudBerry (http://www.cloudberrylab.com/ http://www.cloudberrylab.com/). This is perfect since I also have a NAS and scripts that backup the server nightly. With this I could essentially just install and repoint the existing script to the new drive. Also, S3 has built in versioning which is really nice.
  • Teckla 11y ago
    I had trouble with Google Drive on Windows. The Google Drive process would frequently take 100% of a core even if just a single 1k file was in the Google Drive folder. It's broken. This really bummed me out because I was evaluating it before sending Google my money, but I have concerns about the quality of their client. Apparently this has been a problem for years.
• DyslexicAtheist 11y ago
  find a service where encryption keys belong to you. I've tried wuala but their java client sucks. after I exceed my storage the client didn't prompt me to upgrade but told me that I was now locked out of wuala and my service suspended and went into an infinite loop forcing me to exit the X-window manager and kill the process. Also google drive has become annoying (e.g. I upload a ripped DVD movie which I own and paid for and share it with my son who lives in the same house, google tells me that I'm sharing copyright content (wtf)) So they definitely look at content and behave like big brother.
• sertys 11y ago
  I can recommend using Filement(filement.com) for that. It would be a sync interface with you and your data. While as you can add and manage your devices, you can also add your cloud accounts so you can move your backups around and intensify diversification. That said, 50 yrs is a huge amount of time in tech and guarantee is hardly to be held against any business venture or even protocol. But since you have not specified a requirement for automated, non-assisted backups over the time course, i believe that process will be organic and your data will find its way to the future hopefully intact.
• sertys 11y ago
  I can recommend using Filement(filement.com) for that. It would be a sync interface with you and your data. While as you can add and manage your devices, you can also add your cloud accounts so you can move your backups around and intensify diversification. That said, 50 yrs is a huge amount of time in tech and guarantee is hardly to be held against any business venture or even protocol. But since you have not specified a requirement for automated, non-assisted backups over the time course, i believe that process will be organic and your data will find its way to the future hopefully intact.
• PauloManrique 11y ago
  I suggest OneDrive. With a cheap Office subscription you get 1TB and can sign for unlimited space at preview.onedrive.com