Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by imajes 3906 days ago
If it cost you about $1000 to buy a diskpack (4*6TB drives) you could create backups and send them to at least a half dozen locations for less money than using S3 to store that data.

Yes, S3 is cheap(ish). But given Snowball is a snapshot backup service, it's not comparatively cheaper than it would be to distribute that same data by creating a clone and sending it to a safe place.
2 comments
toomuchtodo 3906 days ago
That's not really how business IT works (unless you're sending tape off to Iron Mountain, which has its own costs and storage fees).

S3 is the cheapest "real" business storage option besides Backblaze's new storage offering. S3 can't be compared to shipping disks someplace where they sit offline.

link
jasonlotito 3906 days ago
If you are just using it for backup, you wouldn't use S3. You'd use Glacier.

What this offers is a useful way to get TBs of data up to Amazon easily, cheaply, and quickly.

link