C14, the Secure Cold Storage Platform, for Free During the Summer
blog.online.net
blog.online.net
> 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).
Mik (Online.net network)
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 ?
Man, that would be awesome.
[1] http://docs.aws.amazon.com/AmazonS3/latest/dev/UploadingObje...
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)
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 can emergency page us on Christmas day.
We'll set up "pull" jobs on our end to pull the backups from you.
These things are very valuable to some people ...
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.
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.
Email us. We'll talk.
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.
Maybe it's a way on ensuring income for a certain duration on capacity freed up by way of such deletes.
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 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.
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.
Mik
Mik