I have terabytes of data that I'd be happy to dump encrypted and compressed in Deep Glacier and happy to pay $500 to retrieve if I were to mess up my hard drives, but otherwise don't want to pay for the costs of normal S3.
Does Kopia separate metadata from the actual encrypted/compressed blobs?
Yes, Kopia does segregate metadata from data. Directory listings, snapshot manifests and few other minor data pieces are stored in pack files starting with "q" while the bulk of data is stored in pack files starting with "p". Indexes into both kinds of pack files are stored in filenames starting with "n".
This has some interesting properties. For example we can easily cache all metadata files locally, which provides fast directory listing, manifest listing and very fast verification without having to download actual data.
Legally that price is supposed to be for 1TB storage but the quota is still not being technically enforced, at least for me with a grandfathered gsuite account. Not sure about new accounts, it seems something may have changed couple of weeks ago with new ToS.
Surely they've closed this "loophole" on new accounts.
Look/ask around in r/DataHoarder for recent experiences of other people, they also discuss other storage services in general a lot.
Normal S3 would be ~$1.1k/yr, or around half of that for the infrequent access tier, both of which are way too expensive.
Backblaze B2's calculator is a little more sophisticated, and putting in the numbers for an absolutely pathological usecase where you start with 4TB, download, delete and upload that same amount every month puts you at $720/year. A much less pathological use case (I think) that assumes you upload, delete and download 1TB/month puts out around $360/year.
Hetzner storage boxes offer 10TB for ~$48/month, which is $576 a year -- free ingress/egress, no hidden fees for operations or whatever else, but you do have to set up a node with minio (or use FTP, etc).
Amortized over the happy time (time where you don't need to rely on your backups) this does make sense, but I wonder what the percentages look like on that kind of metric. To be fair I haven't had to restore from backup for years so this probably makes a lot of sense. I guess there's no need to test your backups/restore either if you're using a tool like borg/restic/etc and have tested it with local hardware.
Also, what happens if you have to retrieve data twice from Glacier? You've got access to it for 24 hours so I assume you're planning on just keeping the data on some non-glacier storage medium for a while after the initial post-disaster pull?
Part of my calculus is that I have quite strong confidence in AWS in terms of business continuity and reliability/availability. If I dump my files on AWS, I have high confidence in the files (and AWS) being around in 10 years and retrievable for roughly the same price (or at least no more).
Hetzner would have much lower durability. I'm a bit suss on Backblaze, though I do trust them to be more durable than my self-managed disks (and uncorrelated to my failures). I don't know much about Wasabi; but it's not a good sign for me that their landing page touts their latest funding round at the top: seems young and you never know if the price is subsidized with VC money (and won't be in n years) or similar.
> Also, what happens if you have to retrieve data twice from Glacier?
The killer is the egress. I'd just buy a new set of disks and download it straight there.
Network is one thing but what am I missing here? Maybe I just think $10/month is reasonable for 1TB (because I don't have enough TBs? or use remote storage enough?), and that's different from most people who are interested in this.