thanks colin for the clarification! cheers
justin On Wed, Aug 22, 2012 at 2:39 PM, Colin Percival <[email protected]>wrote: > On 08/21/12 21:21, Justin Kelly wrote: > > I'm sure someone will ask this soon enough > > I've had about 20 emails and tweets so far... > > > Is there any chance that tarsnap could be used with Amazon Glacier? > > - Assuming I very rarely want to restore files > > > > Why: At $.01 per GB per month its very cheap and if I'm only even going > to > > restore if there is a real disaster it + tarsnap looks to suit my needs > > Short answer: Not right now. > > Longer answer: At some point in the future it *may* be possible to mark > archives as "frozen", resulting in bits ending up in Amazon Glacier and > your storage costs going down. There's a lot of work which would have > to go into that, though -- Tarsnap's deduplication makes that sort of > thing far more complicated since translating "I won't need *this archive* > any time soon" into "tarsnap can move *these bits* into cold storage" is > not at all trivial. Also, the back-end storage costs aren't the only > factor in determining Tarsnap's pricing -- there's significant work in > translating Tarsnap protocol requests into Amazon S3 requests (and if > Tarsnap used Glacier, there would be even more for the server code to > keep track of) -- so you wouldn't see $0.01/GB for the cold-stored bits; > most likely it would be somewhere in the $0.03 - $0.05 / GB range. > > I'm going to be writing a blog post about some of these details and will > mention it here when it's ready. > > -- > Colin Percival > Security Officer Emeritus, FreeBSD | The power to serve > Founder, Tarsnap | www.tarsnap.com | Online backups for the truly paranoid > >
