Re: Please Recommend Affordable and Reliable Cloud Storage for 50 TB of Data
On 2019-02-17, Celejar <celejar@gmail.com> wrote:
> On Fri, 15 Feb 2019 09:52:55 -0000 (UTC)
> Curt <curty@free.fr> wrote:
>
>> On 2019-02-15, Turritopsis Dohrnii Teo En Ming <tdteoenming@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >
>> > Basically personal data. I don't intend to access the data in the
>> > Cloud often. Just want to park it permanently in the Cloud. Maybe I
>> > can access the Cloud from anywhere in the world?
>> >
>>
>>
>> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amazon_Glacier
>
> Depending on how often / how fast the storage will need to be accessed,
> C14 can be cheaper:
>
> https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing
Amazon also fills the enterprise-unlikely-to-fold-in-the-foreseeable-
future" reliability criterion. I'm uncertain about c14 in this regard
(though a "deep underground fallout shelter located in Paris, France.
Without known natural, technological, and military risks..." sounds
quite reassuring, especially if you're a French civil servant).
One worrisome aspect is the "Sustainability Guarantee" (whatever that
might be) for a "Standard" service level is merely 3-6 years, which is
quite this side of forever.
It also appears that once your data is uploaded to a "safe-deposit box"
(limited to 40TB in size) via the rsync, ftp, sftp, or scp protocols, it
is permanently archived. But you only have 7 days to effectuate that
upload. How many TBs of data the OP could transfer over his link in a
week remains to be evaluated, but it seems unarchiving an existing
archive to add more data, or creating a new one, are both operations
subject to a fee.
BTW, what about these Canadians (histoire de couper la poire en deux, so
to speak)?
https://www.sync.com/pricing/
Business Advanced
For multiple users
$15per user, per month
billed annually
2-user minimum
All the secure file storage you need (up to 10 TB per user), with
advanced sharing, collaboration, admin controls and live support.
That comes out to $75.00 a month for 50TB (five users).
Sounds pretty good from here.
> Celejar
>
>
Reply to: