On 21 May 2014 17:55, Russell Coker <[email protected]> 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 _______________________________________________ luv-main mailing list [email protected] http://lists.luv.asn.au/listinfo/luv-main
