> Your data will be stored in our fallout shelter, located 25 meters under the ground in Paris, France, starting in September 2016.
So where is it for now? And like Backblaze, a single site storage solution means you should only consider this as an extra backup (not primary storage).
There's a note that in September they'll also be expanding to offer multisite, but don't have pricing yet for that (hopefully just 2-3x depending on number of sites)
I'm curious about the 40 TB per archive limit. Is that some sort of equivalent to a full back blaze storage pod? I can't imagine an S3/GCS bucket restriction like that, so I'm curious how customers will be expected to work around it.
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (but not on GCS).
"I can't imagine an S3/GCS bucket restriction like that, so I'm curious how customers will be expected to work around it."
Amazon S3 has a 5TB object size limit and only 5GB (!) can be uploaded in a single PUT[1]. Different limits, but still something people have to work around.
An actual filesystem on ZFS makes all of these limits disappear. Does anyone offer cloud storage based on that ?
> An actual filesystem on ZFS makes all of these limits disappear. Does anyone offer cloud storage based on that ?
rsync.net advertises
> a ZFS filesystem, accessible with any SSH/SFTP tool, running on a UNIX system.
You're paying for that though, rsync.net starts at 8c/GB/month (for 10+TB), the smallest offering (under 1TB) is 20c/GB/month), by comparison S3 is 2.75c to 3c/GB/month in standard storage (and 1.25c/GB/month for IA)
Apparently you didn't notice who you were replying to.
rsync.net charges more for data at rest but they don't charge for downloads which is a significant savings for some use-cases. Also note that AWS's IA storage has a $0.01/GB retrieval charge on top of their standard data transfer out charges.
"You're paying for that though, rsync.net starts at 8c/GB/month (for 10+TB), the smallest offering (under 1TB) is 20c/GB/month), by comparison S3 is 2.75c to 3c/GB/month in standard storage (and 1.25c/GB/month for IA)"
Actually, the ZFS send/recv capable accounts start at 6 cents and go down from there. There's a bit of a cost reduction since we don't create and maintain snapshots for you - you take care of that yourself, with your own zpool at rsync.net.
I can definitely see the value in those things but I think there's also a place for "dumb" storage. Some people want that great support, some people don't need it.
I'm in the latter category and I'd rather have the choice to pay for it than be forced into it, which is why despite loving the trial I had with you guys, I couldn't justify continuing.
Yes, multi-location will be proposed in September, you will be able to choose each location where you want your archive.
The 40TB limit came from the temporary storage plateform who need to be fully provisioned for each active archives. This temporary storage is free of charge, we had to put some limitations to keep reasonable plateform. https://blog.online.net/content/images/2016/07/c14howitworks...
The backend storage pool (The "C14 cloud") is near unlimited.
Good to know. So what facility are you in currently? And how much bandwidth do you have? (i.e., if I want to get 25 TB out for recovery, how long will that take in the best case?)
it is expected to take a few hours to un-archive datas
as for the bandwidth, we have well enough (we have about 1.5tb/s global external capacity at the moment with various global IXes and many tier1 transits),
the C14 platform network itself is designed to scale very easily (10g/40g unit base connections)
Why is there a charge for deleting data? If I want to stop using the service or just lower the storage charge, I need to pay for that? Scrubbing I can understand if scrubbing is not mandatory, but deleting should just be marking data as free to overwrite so someone else can be charged.
I'm not speaking on behalf of C14 or similar service, but the charge for deleting data isn't very new. Quoting from http://aws.amazon.com/s3/pricing/
For objects that are archived to Glacier, there is a pro-rated charge of $0.021 per gigabyte for objects deleted prior to 90 days.
Objects that are in Standard – Infrequent Access have a minimum 30 days of storage, and objects that are deleted, overwritten, or transitioned to a different storage class before 30 days incur a pro-rated charge equal to the storage charge for the remaining days.
The difference that I see here is that C14 appears to charge for deletion regardless of the access.
Maybe it's a way on ensuring income for a certain duration on capacity freed up by way of such deletes.
Digital Ocean is arguably kind of close. SoftLayer and Rackspace are the biggest players in this space, but unlike Scaleway there's no way to start at $10/month.
Why do you feel like you need bare metal though?
Disclosure: I work on Compute Engine, and we don't offer bare metal (so of course I'm trying to sell you on virtualized offerings).
I'm not really looking for someone like Rackspace. I want someone that lets me easily spin up capacity on demand at pretty low cost.
I love compute engine. I run a bunch of nodes on it, but unfortunately it doesn't do nested virtualization. I specifically want to run some virtual box workloads and some other stuff that needs light weight virtualization.
I've found a couple virtual server providers that offer nested Virtualization, but not entirely sure how it works. They were also crazy expensive.
Funny thing is that I use Scaleway also, and did not have any problems registering a credit card with them. Since online.net and scaleway seem to be the same or related somehow, maybe they should copy-paste the CC validation code from them or allow login with the same user.
Same for me. I wanted to use them two weeks ago but could not get passed it. I just gave up on 3rd card attempt. And btw why can't they support pay-pall? It always makes me uneasy to pass in the credit card details directly on a site.
Seems that under the guise of security it seems that sites can leave their payment process to be complete crap (UX/UI, feedback and everything else). I see this far too often; sometimes not even the "Error" appears, just a page reload without any indication. It is not that hard to be clear guys...
From the perspective of sustainable, I can find retail harddrives for about €0.023 per GB (not counting taxes). This site take €0.002 per month, so with a very simplistic view, a harddrive is producing profits after about a year. There is of course many additional costs, and they could also be getting a better deal than current retail prices, but from a pure question of "X+1 customer mean a gain or a loss", I would lean towards sustainable.
I'd expect energy costs of a data centre + wages to dwarf the actual HDD costs.
A half-hour support call is going to cost something like €10 - for which you need to service 5TB-months of data (ie one month of 5000GB of data at 0.2 euro-cents pays for the support cost in min. wage employees).
It's great if this is a sustainable business as I only have 1TB of data at home and probably only a third of that needs backing up. So 4TB-months of data per annum, €8 - that's much cheaper than buying a HDD myself c. £50 [currently €60] which I expect to have c. 5 years of life. Though the A in ADSL then starts getting really annoying.
I wonder, can you use Carbon-14 to store something? A halflife of 5730±40 years should be fine for now but you should be prepared to copy it on a regular basis …
well kind of yes I guess,
protocols to transfer from your side to C14 platform is fully encrypted (SSH/FTPS ...)
then it's encrypted by the C14 platform itself to the end-storage backends
> Where is my data stored?
> Your data will be stored in our fallout shelter, located 25 meters under the ground in Paris, France, starting in September 2016.
So where is it for now? And like Backblaze, a single site storage solution means you should only consider this as an extra backup (not primary storage).
There's a note that in September they'll also be expanding to offer multisite, but don't have pricing yet for that (hopefully just 2-3x depending on number of sites)
I'm curious about the 40 TB per archive limit. Is that some sort of equivalent to a full back blaze storage pod? I can't imagine an S3/GCS bucket restriction like that, so I'm curious how customers will be expected to work around it.
Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud (but not on GCS).