Hacker News Reader

(I'm the guy behind Arq) It's also useful as a second-tier backup. If you use Time Machine or SuperDuper you may never need to retrieve your Arq backups, but it's nice to know it's there in case your house burns down or somebody steals your computer + hard drives.

View on HN

BTW, I'm not dissing on your product at all (and apologize for going off on a tangent). It could be that Arq is the glue that makes Glacier far more superior than any kind of personal storage solution. I'm just bickering about the cost of Glacier alone...but otherwise, I think it's great to have a Glacier-accessible option.

I didn't take it as a criticism of Arq. I wish costs were lower as well. On the other hand, I see there's a big difference between a hard drive vs bottomless storage that's remote, replicated, durable, and "always" accessible, so the cost doesn't seem so high to me. I've been of the opinion for a while now that the safest way to store bits is on spinning hard drives -- safer than DVD, tape, turned-off hard drives.

This is exactly the application I considered upon seeing this article.

I'm planning to loop back and investigate how restoration would work, but it seems like a potentially great way to have another layer of backup.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com