Second, Glacier imposes early deletion penalties that can add unneeded costs to your monthly bill. You can send up a lot more data and it's not going to kill you financially. So there's not as much of a compelling motivation for enforcing stored-data limits the way you do with S3 in Arq. First of all, Glacier is way cheaper overall. You don't specify an exact budget number with Glacier the way you do with S3, and there's a couple of reasons for that. With Glacier, you choose when and how to download data back from the Amazon servers so your expenditures stay low. Arq trims away older backup versions to stay within that budget. For S3, you tell it how much you wish to spend per month on data storage. You simply choose which destination you wish to use.Īrq is sensitive to your budget needs for both S3 and Glacier backups, providing excellent consumer feedback and planning. From your point of view, there's no real difference in backing up to S3 or Glacier. Overall, you choose whether to back up every hour or every day. It runs a background daemon that monitors the folders you've selected. Here, the destination for this iPhoto library is Glacier.Īrq provides incremental backup support, only updating changes like Time Machine does. Arq's backup set list indicates where each item get backed up to. You choose the destination for each folder you back up, selecting either S3 or Glacier. This makes Glacier the perfect budget solution for items that you want protected but that you rarely access such as baby pictures, old blog archives, completed work projects and so forth. You pay less but you may have to wait for your data. This allows Amazon to trade-off access loads for price. Instead of instant access, you request a "job" that typically completes within a few hours. Glacier was designed for rarely accessed data with flexible retrieval times. By subscribing, you are agreeing to Engadget's Terms and Privacy Policy.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |