Experience with cloud-based storage [was: Re: Annual Warning; Check Yur Backups]

Ryan Simpkins plug at ryansimpkins.com
Mon Mar 24 15:21:01 MDT 2014


On Fri, March 21, 2014 16:12, Chris wrote:
> On Fri, Mar 21, 2014 at 12:46 PM, S. Dale Morrey <sdalemorrey at gmail.com>wrote:
>
>> Depends on the amount of data, but I've had great luck with AWS S3fs and
>> glacier for dealing with backups.
>>
>
> I'm curious to know how well this works (economically and practically) at
> various scales.  Would you be willing to share some (rough) details about
> your cloud-based backups?  For example: How large is your baseline dataset?
>  How large are the daily incremental snapshots?  What prices do you pay for
> that amount of cloud-based storage?  Can the backend storage service
> transfer data (in & out) as fast as your internet connection allows?

I am using block based persistent storage at Rackspace. It isn't exactly
"cloud" like, but it certainly does the trick. Nice performance, though you
certainly pay for it. The price is $0.12/GB/Mo. with 100GB minimum. I've
looked in to glacier, and I have several solution-specific issues with that
approach. Restoration can be a real challenge and/or expensive. If a critical
service were off-line waiting for a restoration, it might be difficult to pony
up the cash to get it in a reasonable time frame. I think glacier would be
perfect for large bits that aren't critical. Photos, video, etc. I don't think
I would put database backups in there for anything other than very long-term
storage to add liability protection, etc.

Turning a file system in to S3 objects seems like a potentially massive
migraine waiting to happen if you may want to restore order to the universe in
the future. If you are okay with chaos (and many applications would be), then
go forth and use it.

-Ryan


More information about the PLUG mailing list