I don't have anything to do with rsync.net, but having looked at both AWS and them: How cheap Amazon is heavily depends on your retrieval needs. Glacier is bas

I don't have anything to do with rsync.net, but having looked at both AWS and them: How cheap Amazon is heavily depends on your retrieval needs. Glacier is basically for gigantic data vaults where you will never need to retrieve more than a small fraction of it. It's very cheap for that, but has retrieval fees if you need to retrieve >5% of your data at any given time, and they can be very high if you need to retrieve a significant amount of the data quickly (also, there's a 4-hour minimum retrieval latency, so you wouldn't want any possibly-needed-for-operations backups there). S3 allows your storage to be "online" full-time, but adds a $0.09/GB bandwidth charge for outgoing data, in addition to the $0.03/GB storage fee, so overall price depends heavily on what you're pulling out of it. The $0.06/GB promotional offer in this rsync.net post actually seems surprisingly cheap, for always-online storage with no additional bandwidth fees. Even their normal prices seem pretty fair to me, for something that comes with full phone/email support, provides a regular POSIX filesystem with SSH access instead of a weird custom API, etc. If I were warehousing petabytes of never-to-be-needed data, the price difference over Glacier would be hard to ignore. But for a lot of needs it seems quite competitive to S3.