x4d66a5ce

8 ms·

1. 1.▲
   by x4d66a5ce 9y ago

   > rsync.net is 18x as expensive as B2 I'm aware, but B2 is not the reference point. He said he went with S3, so that's what we're comparing to. I.e., if S3's prices are palatable, then rsync.net might be, too.
2. 2.▲
   by x4d66a5ce 9y ago

   I took the GP's remark about how he "went with s3 as s3cmd had a path of least resistance to storing backups" to mean that he considered B2 but opted for S3 since the latter offers a backup utility, but the former supports ne
3. 3.▲
   by x4d66a5ce 9y ago

   Except currently it is a concern: > it remains on so that backup and B2 data can be uploaded and accessed This is also why Amazon has tiered pricing between S3 and Glacier.
4. 4.▲
   by x4d66a5ce 9y ago

   I wonder about this, too. Since access latency is the primary concern, a neat solution would be to create some dynamic "fastup" storage scheme. For large files, loosen the always-on requirement; to fulfill a request the first N