Peter Machell wrote: > On 27/03/2007, at 9:19 PM, David Guest wrote: > >> Mario >> >> I really like the idea of Google looking after my backups. GFS may be >> the optimal file system for reliability of data access. > > Provided it is encrypted - do you do this Mario and to what extent? Also > worth noting that the sort of redundancy Google has is within reach > locally.
Google Mail (Gmail) limits message attachments on any one message to 10MB, which means any back-up larger than that will need to be split into multiple attachments to multiple messages - it all gets a bit messy and tenuous. A much better idea is to use Amazon S3, which was designed and is marketed just for this purpose, and the costs are very low indeed - see my previous posts on this, starting at http://www.mail-archive.com/[email protected]/msg02033.html As David More pointed out, my speed tests were hampered by the upload speed cap on by Optus Cable connection, of which I was unaware at the time of writing - I still think that Amazon S3 is perfect for off-site encrypted back-ups of even very large GP clinical databases. But the encryption needs to be strong, and the encryption keys very secure indeed. Tim C _______________________________________________ Gpcg_talk mailing list [email protected] http://ozdocit.org/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/gpcg_talk
