Do you backup your cloud servers?
-
@JaredBusch storage in a different datacenter, ideally in two datacenters in two different locations.
Amazon S3 can do this affordability right?
-
@wrx7m said:
I will hang tight until we can get to the bottom of the, "should I even use OwnCloud" debacle.
Had a very good conversation about an hour ago. They are going to be posting some updates soon, but I definitely have the answer that CentOS 7 is the "most standard" and absolutely supported option.
-
@aaronstuder said:
Backups are stored in the same datacenter as the original instance on a separate fault tolerant storage system.
https://www.vultr.com/docs/vps-automatic-backups
Not quite the backup I was hoping for
That's standard for any cloud hosting system. If you want stuff like Amazon S3, you need to work with a provider that HAS systems like that. You can't expect Amazon-like facilities from a Vultr type player. And on Amazon, you have to implement that specially, it isn't the standard.
-
@scottalanmiller it sounded like yesterday you wrote them off? Have you chanced your mind?
-
@aaronstuder said:
@JaredBusch storage in a different datacenter, ideally in two datacenters in two different locations.
Amazon S3 can do this affordability right?
Not affordably like Vultr. Is S3 a good value? Yes. Is it cheap, no.
-
@aaronstuder said:
@scottalanmiller it sounded like yesterday you wrote them off? Have you chanced your mind?
Yes, the conversation today was very good. They are definitely addressing our concerns.
-
@scottalanmiller According to there website, Amazon S3 Redundancy Storage is about $1.20 for 50GB. What am I missing?
-
@aaronstuder said:
@scottalanmiller According to there website, Amazon S3 Redundancy Storage is about $1.20 for 50GB. What am I missing?
That's the cost per month. There is also the cost on the Vultr side to get the data in and out, and a cost on the Amazon side to get data in and out. The public price of S3 per month is misleading. If you are using S3 to back up AWS, your data never leaves AWS. If Vultr uses it, they pay huge costs.
So if you took a weekly backup of your Vultr SATA node, you could easily more than double the cost of the Vultr node.
-
@scottalanmiller This still seems very cheap to me.
Let's say I am using this plan:
This plan includes almost 1TB of Bandwifth. So even if I filled the server completely, and did a full backup, I would use 250GB of bandwidth leaving me 750GB for the rest of the month.....
Amazon doesn't charge for uploading, only downloading.... 125GB is $3.75
What I am missing?
-
@aaronstuder said:
@scottalanmiller This still seems very cheap to me.
Let's say I am using this plan:
This plan includes almost 1TB of Bandwifth. So even if I filled the server completely, and did a full backup, I would use 250GB of bandwidth leaving me 750GB for the rest of the month.....
Amazon doesn't charge for uploading, only downloading.... 125GB is $3.75
What I am missing?
I'm not sure what you are asking. But to me you've answered the question, so I'm not sure what you are missing. But if you were to use S3 to back up a 125GB instance that only costs $5 and, say, restored twice (which is nothing) your backup would cost more than the entire service does, a lot more. And you'd likely be unhappy if your backups used your bandwidth. So doesn't that totally explain why backups of this nature are not included in the $5? Vultr could not possibly afford to offer this.
