[aborsy]

S3 is probably the highest quality. It’s enterprise grade : fast, secure with a lot of tiers and controls.

If you recover only small data, it’s also not expensive. The only problem is if you recover large data. That would be a major problem.

[capableweb]

10TB storage + 100TB bandwidth and S3 will easily be +1000 USD per month, while there are solutions out there that are fast and secure with unrestricted bandwidth for less than 100 USD per month. Magnitude cheaper with same grade in "enterprisey".

[aborsy]

Well, I said, if you store small data. For large data, sure, prohibitively expensive!

I don’t think many other solutions are equally fast and secure.

AWS operation is pretty transparent, documented, audited and used by governments. You can lock it down heavily with IAM and a CMK KMS key, and audit the repository. The physical security is also pretty tight, and there is location redundancy.

Even hetzner doesn’t have proper redundancy in place. Other major providers in France burned down (apparently with with data loss), or had security problems with hard drives stolen in transport.

I don’t work for AWS, don’t have much data in there, just saying. GCP and Azure are probably also good.

[charcircuit]

>Well, I said, if you store small data.

Well, the OP said he would be using >100 TB a month.

>GCP and Azure are probably also good.

They similarly charge 100x for bandwidth. No they are not a good option either.

[KomoD]

OPs post is literally about 10TB storage and 100+TB/mo

[capableweb]

> Ask HN: Suggestions to host 10TB data with a monthly +100TB bandwidth

[sacnoradhq]

Too expensive. RRS would be the only consideration, and it's not a for-sure thing compared to other options.