On 21 May 2014 17:55, Russell Coker <russell@coker.com.au> wrote:
On Wed, 21 May 2014 17:40:14 Toby Corkindale wrote:
Looks like it would work for S3-based backups and is almost certainly neater than my custom solution -- but doesn't support Glacier. It's probably not hard to add support though, as long as it's making tarball-like archives and not individual files it'll play OK with their accounting. (Glacier encourages fewer, very large, file archives)
Amazon has a facility for automatically copying S3 data into Glacier. So why can't anything that uses S3 support copying the data to Glacier?
No reason, but it means you're paying all the S3 fees too.
Also why do you want Glacier?
Last time I looked at the pricing the cost of storing 15TB in Glacier for a year was about equal to buying a Dell PowerEdge T110 server and 5*4TB disks which in a RAID-Z configuration will store the same amount of data.
Seriously? Amazon Glacier will charge ~$10/month to store my data, with no up-front fee. Buying a server and a pile of disks is a significant start-up cost, and then hosting will be $90/month -- and I'll have to monitor the server and spend money on replacement disks and parts as they fail, and replace the entire machine every few years. I really don't see how that is possibly cheaper than spending $10/month. Toby