Hacker News Reader

I think Amazon Glacier should be considered the third or fourth backup. First being local, second cloud or distributed and then fourth as last resort off-site. Used when everything else has catastrophically failed.

At which point 100$ per TB isn't that bad.

View on HN

.

Just a single drive can be more than 16TB nowadays, having just a couple of those makes $90/TB seem quite high.

That's 90$ for redundant tape storage, stashed away securely in some place far away from your home. A 16TB drive is cheap, but you need a few of them to be safe against file corruption and bit rot and you need to stash them somewhere where a house fire, robbery or natural disaster can't reach them. Also, the storage itself is quite cheap, just the retrieval is expensive. But, as other people said, if you need to get this data, that few dollars won't be your problem.

Disasters often bring financial difficulty, in which cost of repair is very much a problem. It's hard to justify for any individual when much cheaper and easier to use and understand services are available. It's great if your enterprise is looking for a compliance checkbox to tick, Glacier can save a lot of time in that case.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com