> Oh? Have you factored in the cost of ensuring that you always have an offsite and fully up to date copy, not to mention secondary and tertiary copies for transit time in case your primary datacenter/server happens to kick the bucket/get stolen/evaporate?
Assumption: They guarantee that your backups/archives are safe.
Reality: "You are responsible for properly configuring and using the Service Offerings and taking your own steps to maintain appropriate security, protection and backup of Your Content, " Notice the words "and backup". If they lose your data it's your problem, not theirs. http://aws.amazon.com/agreemen...
> It's easy to compare the cost of an offered service to what you can pick up seeming similar equipment for from Amazon or Newegg... the realities though are far more complex.
Not to those who are 'skilled in the art'. For example. a copy of CrashPlan, two 3TB drives locally, one 3TB drive at a parent/friends house. For the paranoid, two 3TB drives at two peoples houses. Assumption: network bandwidth is sufficient and/or not much data change rate and/or happy to shuttle drives backward and forward.
Or, if you don't want to use crashplan, use rsync or other such replication technique. Set up md5sum scanning to run every few weeks at each location, takes a day or so to run and you're 100% certain that bitrot hasn't set in.
* I can touch each physical box.
* It's massively cheaper.
* Recovery is much quicker since I can just grab the physical copy.
* I know how the backup infrastructure is designed. If something goes wrong it's my fault, I can't rail uselessly against the sky gods if suddenly all my data goes away.
* You have to maintain it. You can't trust the sky gods to maintain it for you - a drive fails, you have to buy&replace. Forget to configure something/validate something is done correctly then it's your own fault.