Small Commercial NAS vs. Consumer Desktop Whitebox Fileserver
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Products I would use for a scenario like this include and ARE limited to:
- Synology and/or IOSafe two bay NAS enclosure (paging @Brett-at-ioSafe )
- Netgear ReadyNAS two bay NAS enclosure
Both RAID 1, both business class, both flexible, powerful and cheap. Literally nothing else I would look at or consider.
What's wrong with Buffalo - not that I"m a fan, just wondering?
-
2TB of Data currently.
-
Well, then you really need two devices in different locations for archival storage.
-
Amazon Glacier is $14/Month for 2TB of storage, that seems incredibly cheap.
How is access to the data?
-
@Dashrender said:
@scottalanmiller said:
Products I would use for a scenario like this include and ARE limited to:
- Synology and/or IOSafe two bay NAS enclosure (paging @Brett-at-ioSafe )
- Netgear ReadyNAS two bay NAS enclosure
Both RAID 1, both business class, both flexible, powerful and cheap. Literally nothing else I would look at or consider.
What's wrong with Buffalo - not that I"m a fan, just wondering?
They would certainly be my "next" choice if I did not have those two. The range, support and everything from the "big two" is just excellent. I've had good luck with Buffalo support (and bad luck with Buffalo sales) and their devices are decent, but they are a small player and don't offer the range and expertise that the two main players do.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Amazon Glacier is $14/Month for 2TB of storage, that seems incredibly cheap.
How is access to the data?
SLOWWWWW!!!!!
-
Well again;
@scottalanmiller said: SLOWWWWW!!!!!
Might just be what we need, slow upload / download? It's there to keep is just incase. Any idea on the bandwidth they provide for ingress/egress?
How is the data uploaded / accessed, web browser only?
-
Data is accessed via API. So you would need a tool for accessing it. This is enterprise cloud storage, not an SMB tool.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
Might just be what we need, slow upload / download? It's there to keep is just incase. Any idea on the bandwidth they provide for ingress/egress?
Lots of upload bandwidth, more than you can get your hands on to talk to them. Download can have latency beyond your wildest dreams with delays measured in days.
-
@mlnews said:
@DustinB3403 said:
Might just be what we need, slow upload / download? It's there to keep is just incase. Any idea on the bandwidth they provide for ingress/egress?
Lots of upload bandwidth, more than you can get your hands on to talk to them. Download can have latency beyond your wildest dreams with delays measured in days.
WOW - days?
Uh' I'll need you to submit that request in triplicate than wait the customary 10 days waiting period.
LOL
-
https://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/
Q: Does Amazon S3 provide capabilities for archiving objects to lower cost storage options?
Yes, Amazon S3 enables you to utilize Amazon Glacier’s extremely low-cost storage service as storage for data archival. Amazon Glacier stores data for as little as $0.01 per gigabyte per month, and is optimized for data that is infrequently accessed and for which retrieval times of several hours are suitable. Examples include digital media archives, financial and healthcare records, raw genomic sequence data, long-term database backups, and data that must be retained for regulatory compliance.
Seems like Hours of retrieval time, not days. Which if the data is needed this infrequently might be fine.
Does anyone have solid proof the the Download speed from Amazon Glacier?
-
It's Amazon, not really something you need to question. Every enterprise in the world, nearly, uses these services. If Amazon isn't fast enough, literally nothing is.
-
@DustinB3403 said:
https://aws.amazon.com/s3/faqs/
Q: Does Amazon S3 provide capabilities for archiving objects to lower cost storage options?
Yes, Amazon S3 enables you to utilize Amazon Glacier’s extremely low-cost storage service as storage for data archival. Amazon Glacier stores data for as little as $0.01 per gigabyte per month, and is optimized for data that is infrequently accessed and for which retrieval times of several hours are suitable. Examples include digital media archives, financial and healthcare records, raw genomic sequence data, long-term database backups, and data that must be retained for regulatory compliance.
Seems like Hours of retrieval time, not days. Which if the data is needed this infrequently might be fine.
Does anyone have solid proof the the Download speed from Amazon Glacier?
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
-
It's like asking if anyone can prove that Ferrari will actually get you to the store fast. There is no question, it will get you there faster than the roads you have will let you.
-
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
That seems insane, tape... Might as well use the standard service. Or BackBlaze. Tape... ....
-
@scottalanmiller said:
@coliver said:
Everything I've read (from some enterprise users) seem to suggest that glacier retrieval can indeed go into the 24 hour time frame.
And I've heard longer. It's because it is going to physical tape retrieval.
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
-
@coliver said:
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
We use some of both. The problem is with harddrives you need to have it 4 places when you are complying with retention periods of forever, it does not take that much for multiple drives to go because of it's rust.
Tapes seems to hold up a little better if stored in controlled environments, you can get away with two off site ones at different locations. But yes, retrieval sucks. We use HDDs for our normal backups and replicate to others.
-
@coliver said:
I didn't realize it was physical tape. Wow. I thought tape was getting to the price/gb line where disk is less expensive. Is tape that much more reliable?
Yes it is AND cheap. If you are going to the highest end tape the cost per TB gets very low. And tape is incredible for long term archival storage. But if you can't leverage the full capacity of each tape, it costs a fortune due to the waste.
-
@Jason said:
Tapes seems to hold up a little better if stored in controlled environments, you can get away with two off site ones at different locations. But yes, retrieval sucks. We use HDDs for our normal backups and replicate to others.
Wanted to highlight that bit. One of the key factors with tape is that they are removed and stored in a low cost, controlled location like a vault or a cave (or a mine.) Because they are designed to be transported, not kept stationary, they can do things that disks cannot. And because you take them offline they do not draw power while sitting for a decade. So for slow or nearly never access, they are excellent. Disks are far better if you access the data, tapes are far better if you do not.
