33$ per month for 20TB would be good enough for me, it's a pretty reasonable rate, I'd have paid google or dropbox that rate and union'd some accounts together. But I worry iDrive is maybe small fry who is likely to crumble even faster
You are right to ask this. But I did quick research - they are older by 10 years than Dropbox:) and looks like they do not over sell. Just do what they do - sell storage. I have no definitive answer.
Difference is that if they have thousands of people flocking towards their business with data they can only be happy - their business model looks clear. Anybody offering "unlimited" is playing with fire. As I see iDrive they do not care if you have 10TB or 10PB - your just pay more.
Drobox is public company - somebody got nice bonus for quarterly results for new customers acquisition:) Next quarter somebody else will make equally great bonus for saving company from major losses.
And public relations department will spin both as a proof how great they are... this is how it is.
Yes their auctions have some gems. And at least in Europe they are quite respectable company. Still it is only for people who know what to do. You get server - not storage. You can turn it into what you like but you have to DIY
I only want ~130tb+1tb/monthadded for 100$ I've been looking around. I don't use plex. This data is almost never needed, and isn't needed with milisecond access. This is just my backup. I have ~80tb of local storage.
|S3 Glacier Deep Archive *** - For long-term data archiving that is accessed once or twice in a year and can be restored within 12 hours||
|---|---|
|All Storage / Month|$0.00099 per GB|
If I could use amazon deep glacier it'd only run a little more than 100$ a month. The problem is. I have no clue how to set something so professional up.
While I do not need to access the data itself essentially ever, I am constantly needing to access the metadata, because I'm updating the backup, adding 1% to it, based on some sort of check against some sort of list request. But the backup as it stands right now has millions of files. I'd need to figure out how to restructure the backup to be fewer files in order to fit with amazon deep glacier's policies...
I'd need an inverted chunker. Something that took small files and transparency stored them as large files.
And this worries me on the amazon page in rclone's documentation:
Modified time
Note that reading this from the object takes an additional HEAD request as the metadata isn't returned in object listings.
This is dangerous since it could generate 1000s of extra api calls, which are very expensive on a service like amazon deep glacier.
rclone has a solution for that. --update --use-server-modtime
but it's still extra layers of complexity that scare me.
TLDR: I don't mount, I don't plex, I don't need to access my data on demand, BUT I've not set my backup's up in that smart of a manner, and I'm concerned without some sort of inverted-chunker overlay for my remote I won't be smart enough to make use of amazon deep glacier.
With iDrive we can use rclone to mount as we do for Google Drive?
Any differences in performance/features supported?
I suppose dowload/upload speeds are of interest as well... or is that a given for S3? I guess I don't understand if they are simply resellers of Amazon's S3 or if S3 is just a protocol, now.
Okay, I'm interested, you say idrive has been around a decade longer than dropbox? That's impressive. Which service though are you specifically seeing that's 33$ for 20TB?
I saw personal backup was 50$ for 50TB, which would be great for me if I could make multiple accounts and use a union. But. Documentation doesn't list idrive and if I can't use rclone any service is worthless to me. iDrive has dozens of other products and services though it's almost impossible to tell which is which Some of them are S3 compatible, but that implies that these services (on this one page) are therefore NOT S3 compatible? IDrive® pricing plans
iDrive offers this, which is rclone compatible, but is FAR more expensive S3 Compatible Object Storage - IDrive® e2 this would run 80$ for 20TB instead of the 33$ you quoted above?
It is yet another S3 compatible storage - you could do anything with it the same like with other remotes.
You would have to test. I do not know.
Nothing is given but S3 is well defined and supported API so it always makes things easier. If they are reseller than even better - but I doubt. Why they would resell for fraction of AWS price?
I switched from Google to Dropbox last month and now Dropbox told me 1TB per month even before I finish migrating my data to them. I have about 150TB data, 100% personal family video, so I am wondering if YouTube is a good place to hold these data? like put it in a private mode? Any pros/cons? YT has API and I do not mind the compression and encoding a bit.
Hi @left1000 , if you have all files locally you can use Pricing for Backblaze Online Backup its only 70$ a year and its backup all your local data. If you have 130 TB local he backup 130 TB in the cloud. Perhaps that is a solution?
Last time I checked. Backblaze at that cheap tier only supported their own software, PERIOD. Their software also was entirely nonfunctional for this use. As their software could only backup data to backblaze if it was continually deduped. Which for a large amount of data would be impossible.
~6 years ago or maybe 8 or 10, whenever I signed up for google I considered backblaze instead, but the scuttlebutt was that the cheapo tier for backup of your local personal computer was worthless and would quickly stall to almost 0 bandwidth while heavily throttling your own machine.
Unless someone tells me this is not the case, and that they've recently used it, I can't believe otherwise.
Backblaze's cloud storage is very expensive otherwise, for the version that I'd believe rclone supports.
You are right about Backblaze Online Backup. It is ok-ish for laptop disk backup maybe. Not for TBs of data.
What you need for what you described is simply whatever raw cloud storage you can connect to using rclone.
The cheapest is AWS Deep Glacier ($1/TB/month) - but it has its own quirks and requires carefully designed backup strategy.
For hot storage looks like iDrive at the moment is the best option. But it has its problems too. pay as you go price is good ($4) but nothing revolutionary. - though no transactions fees and massive free egress - so beats B2 or Wasabi easy. It gets real cheaper when you sign for yearly storage (e.g. 100TB is $2000 which translates to $1.7/TB/month) but it has its problems too. Next tier is 200TB. So you would have to pay for 200TB when you store e.g. 120TB. Data stored beyond your plan is charged with pay as you go tariff. So it requires some maths when to switch to bigger plan.
Have you spoken with them about this? The way their pricing is structured, it seems to me that it's straight yearly $20 per TB. 1TB is $20, 100TB is $2,000, 200TB is $4,000. There is no discount as you increase your storage, at all.
As such, maybe by discussing with them one could reach a reasonable agreement if needing more than 100TB but less than 200TB. It would not alter their costs/profits base, at least. So there could be ground to discuss.
I do not mind yearly commitment - and i understand it makes their life much easier in terms of capacity planning. But what I would love to see is more granular plans increase. As you are probably right and I can talk to them to get 150TB. But it does not change much. As then what? talk again few months later when I go above?
I wonder if one user can have multiple plans. This would be ok. So I buy 100TB. Then I can keep adding 10TB every time I need.
