Hacker News new | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submit login
Arq 4 is out – Mac backup to S3/Glacier (haystacksoftware.com)
127 points by michaelx on Mar 3, 2014 | hide | past | web | favorite | 101 comments

I discovered Arq a couple years ago and have been using it ever since. I highly recommend it. The thing that sold me was that the file format is documented and I was able to write code to read the backups directly. So even if somehow Arq does disappear, I can still read my data. http://godoc.org/code.google.com/p/rsc/arq

Is this compatible with the latest version?

Mostly. I need to update it a bit. I will ASAP.

As always, we're very happy to see that in addition to S3/Glacier/DreamCloudStartupOfTheWeek, Arq supports plain old SFTP.

This means that, of course, it works perfectly with rsync.net and that we have yet another chance to offer the HN readers discount, which you may email us to find out about.

Please try and contain yourselves when you see "backup" on HN.

Quick endorsement: buy this. Arq has allowed me to be insanely careless about backups and has never failed. Makes the whole backup thing cost effective, too with Amazon being dirt cheap these days.

Can someone using S3 Glacier as a backup destination please provide some concrete costs? Even if no retrieval is involved, I'd just love to see: "I pay $XYZ and am backing up ###GB worth of data."

I see the calculator floating around in the comments, but it's not formatted in a backup-friendly fashion / use case (ie. set storage size with XYZ% churn for changed files, or continuously expanding snapshots with aged snapshot deletion).

I've always been curious for usage for backup storage. The costs for retrieval are expensive enough (in the time frames I'd care to see for a personal computer) that I think I'll still avoid that aspect for the time being.

Just got the AWS bill. I accidentally started backupping my entire MacBookPro (200 something Gig) and only found out about half way through. Began a new session for the 'Documents' folder only (about 20 gig). The bill was $ 2.03 But Amazon will charge me about $ 0.10 for every Gig I want to retrieve (Glacier). ARC support was quick and good by the way.

It's cheap until you have to grab a bunch of stuff back all at once. Then they have you by the short hairs.

I think if your house/company burned down and you loose yor main PC and the external backup, you'd be glad to pay 0.10 cents for every Gigabyte you can retrieve.

Or potentially higher than 20x that much, if you are downloading it quickly (are you actually aware of the Glacier pricing model? where did you obtain $.10/GB?).


But it's not like S3 and no backup at all are the only two options. There's loads of backup providers (Carbonite, Mozy, Backblaze etc) out there. The comparison needs to be against those.

When you add a folder to Arq (and you're using AWS for a target) it asks whether you want S3 or Glacier and gives a chart of costs: http://www.haystacksoftware.com/storage_type_selection.png

I just got my bill for Feb. I am currently storing 15gb, and it cost me $0.21.

Arq has been part of my backup systems since version 2. This upgrade looks very good. Especially the expansion beyond relying solely on Amazon S3 and use number of other services including SSH.

Having used the past Glacier support, the new S3 Glacier Lifecycle will be much better.

I am wondering about when (if?) the open source arq_restore and format documentation will be updated.

Do you mind elaborating what your total backup solution is? I've been looking at Arq but am not aware of what it does not do and what I would need to fill in the gaps. Currently I rely on time machine backing up to three different drives and keeping one of those drives in the office.

I will ignore what I do for server backups, and I will focus on my MacBook. I run my web development business and my personal life off of this system.

The software I use: CrashPlan, Arq, DropBox, Carbon Copy Cloner.

CrashPlan: I have backing up my data, configuration /Users, /Library. I have a bunch of regex restrictions to not backup various files such as caches, VMWare images, etc. Crashplan backups up to their cloud servers every 15 minutes. When I am at home (where I work from) it also backups to a local copy of CrashPlan on a server.

Arq: I am doing daily backups to Arq. These are now being done to Glacier for long term / last resort backups. This only backups my /Users with heavy restrictions on which files.

DropBox: I have many of my documents stored in Dropbox with the PackRat feature to keep copies of every version and deletion. I don't consider DropBox to be backup by itself, but I often find it is much faster to find and restore something via Dropbox than other methods. I also take care about the types of data I put on Dropbox.

Carbon Copy Cloner: as I mentioned in another part of this thread, I think SuperDuper is better for most people. However, I do use CCC's ability to remotely do a boot able bare metal backup to my home office server. When I travel, I typically take an external backup drive with a current mirror of my system.

I don't use Apple's Time Machine. I think it is a good choice for most home users. As Apple has added more features to Time Machine, I do think about adding it to my mix.

That covers most things. I do have somethings under SVN or Git which could be considered another layer of backup.

Currently, the biggest pain point for me in backups is VMWare images. I currently have 4 Linux and 3 Windows images on this system, and they can cause a huge amount of data needing to be backed up every time they are used.

> Currently, the biggest pain point for me in backups is VMWare images. I currently have 4 Linux and 3 Windows images on this system, and they can cause a huge amount of data needing to be backed up every time they are used.

This is where a sector-by-sector backup program shines.

I don't know what to recommend on the Mac, but on Windows, ShadowProtect is pretty wonderful. It backs up only changed sectors - update 10MB in a 10GB file and it only copies that 10MB - and it's insanely fast.

Even with a file-by-file backup, one thing you can do for VMware images is to take a snapshot. After you take a snapshot, further changes to the VM don't go into the large .vmdk file you just snapshotted, they go into a new, potentially much smaller .vmdk file, so your next incremental backups may be much smaller.

Why not just setup backups from inside the VM's, while having the base VM image backed up somewhere (once) as well?

I have sometimes done this with Linux VM's that I use for local development.

Usually, the VM disk images are some where between the need to backup Applications and configuration files, and not as important my work and data files.

The problem with VM's is not just the quantity of data that needs to be backed up, but the overall size of the data that needs to be evaluated. I think that CrashPlan does a pretty good job of just coping the changed data of the disk image, but it has to do a HUGE amount of processing with every backup. Therefore VM's are hard to fit in with the remote versioned backups of CrashPlan and Arq.

I do backup these up via Carbon Copy Clone when I mirror the entire drive.

> Why not just setup backups from inside the VM's, while having the base VM image backed up somewhere (once) as well?

That would be quite a project, compared with backing up everything on the host system as I do now.

I have all sorts of VMs. Some of them are extremely minimal OSes (think router/firewall distros). I have no idea how I would be able to back these up from inside the VM. And even for the VMs where I could do that, why bother? It seems like a lot of work.

By having an extremely fast sector backup running on my host system, I can be sure that all of my VMs are backed up, with no extra effort when I install a new one. I don't have to worry about how I would do a "restore" in any of those specific VMs, I can just restore files on the host OS and know that it will work perfectly.

A much simpler and more convenient solution.


> DropBox: I have many of my documents stored in Dropbox with the PackRat feature to keep copies of every version and deletion.

Aren't you worried about the lack of encryption?

Due to privacy concerns, I don't put everything in Dropbox. But most of what I do doesn't need to be that protected. And I do keep somethings in Dropbox that have been gpg encrypted.

I live in a office and work environment with windows that people can look in. I don't much like people staring in, but I am also not about to keep the blackout curtains drawn at all times.

I do wish that there were other more secure options than Dropbox, but the combination of easy of use, price, third party support, and collaboration make Dropbox hard to beat.

So, you need to cover yourself against (at least) the following:

1. Bug in your backup software This is addressed by using more than 1 piece of backup software.

2. Corruption in your live data (i.e. your filesystem corrupts your favourite baby photo) This is addressed by having lots of incremental backups going back into history. Note that Time Machine throws away historical incrementals over time, so does not protect against this, given long enough time windows.

3. Failure of your backup hardware This is addressed by using more than 1 piece of backup hardware.

4. Destruction of your backup hardware This is addressed by having your backups exist in more than 1 physical location, so you can never lose your live data and all your backups because of, say, a house fire.

5. User error deletion of data This is addressed by having backups that run frequently.

My strategy is:

* Time Machine to a Time Capsule on my LAN

* Time Machine to an external disk on my Mac

* Nightly Carbon Copy Cloner clone of my entire disk to (the same) external disk on my Mac

* Nightly Arq backup to Glacier's Ireland location (I live in London)

So (in addition to the live copy of my data on my Mac's main disk) I have 4 copies of my data, from 3 different pieces of backup software, on 3 different pieces of hardware, in 2 different locations. The CCC clone is there mainly because it's bootable, so if my mac's SSD fails, I can reboot and hold a key and I'm no more than 24 hours behind.

Wonderful piece of software - highly recommended. Awesome upgrade also, have been waiting for S3 alternatives for a long time.

It's unfortunate a few things appear to be backwards - why can you include wifi APs, yet not exclude them - despite the example suggesting you exclude from tethered devices.

Likewise, why can you email on success, but not failure.

Seriously? There's still no way to get notified if a backup fails?

It emails on both success and failure.

Could you change the upgrade system on macs please? I got a message telling me to install the latest update -- so I did. I was on a paid version of Arq 3, and now I'm on a trial version of Arq 4 :-/

Didn't the upgrade text explain that it was a paid upgrade? I tried to make that as clear as I could.

If you want to stick with Arq 3 you can. Delete Arq 4. Download Arq 3 (http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/Arq_3.3.4.zip). Launch Arq 3. You'll have to find your old backup set under "Other Backup Sets", select it, and click the "Adopt This Backup Set" button. Sorry for the hassle.

People often don't read that sort of thing, and just click the "update" button. A paid upgrade probably shouldn't be available through the normal in-app updater.

Agree that this should have been presented differently - something other than the normal update mechanism, which becomes routine over time. This is a major update with a fee associated - the 'upgraded' user is presented with an 'unlicensed' copy of Arq4 and continual purchase dialogs until they get out their credit card and pay again.

By the way, the license file I got was named: <numbers>.syncPhotosLicense Adding it to Arq 4 seemed to work fine though. Was a bit confusing.

I've regularly been curious about this, but Crashplan has a stable reputation and seems much less expensive for large backups. For those who have researched Crashplan, why did you choose Arq instead?

As I have replied to several questions in this thread and said that I use both CrashPlan and Arq for remote backups let me give my rational.

CrashPlan: I have used since soon after they first appeared for Mac. They have really strong compression and de-duplication to minimize and speed data transfers. I personally use their consumer and small business solutions. However, I also maintain their CrashPlan PROe enterprise backup for several clients. The fact that they have a very strong enterprise product, provides me with a great deal of trust in the quality of CrashPlan's work. I think they have be best solution I have used for a notebook that is on the move. I backup to both their remote servers and to my own home office server. Thus, I have the option to quickly restore from my own local server, their much slower remote server AND I can have a CrashPlan Next Day send me a copy of my data on a disk drive. I do wish they could get rid of the Java dependency for their Mac Client software since it is a RAM hog. CrashPlan rates very well at saving Mac OS X meta data.

Arq: I like the approach to backing up to Amazon S3 which I know is a very reliable storage environment, and Glacier has made it dirt cheap for last resort archival backups. I like the fact that at least through Version 3 there has been an open source software GitHub hosted restore. If Haystack software disappears there are still options to restore. I believe Arq is one of the very few Mac OS X remote backup systems that preserves ALL meta data.

I have used lots backup software over 30 years. Every backup system has failings and bugs. And the operator (normally me) is capable of making mistakes. That is why I use multiple products to do backup.

I am interested in exploring Arq new features especially using SSH/SFTP which will allow me to self host, and may cause me to re-evaluate my overall backup approach.

I've talked to the CrashPlan folks recently, and they have been working on native clients for a while now. They wouldn't tell me a release date of course, but it's in the works :)

Using multiple backup products is a very good idea!

I've used JungleDisk, CrashPlan, and now Arq.

I left JungleDisk because it went sideways and S3 was too expensive. After that was CrashPlan; I liked its free remote backup option. But then my backup destination disappeared behind carrier grade NAT. That left me with paying for regular CrashPlan or looking elsewhere. Enter Arq.

Based on my estimated usage, for two computers, I calculated the following estimated yearly cost.

   JungleDisk S3 $288
   CrashPlan     $120
   Arq Glacier   $ 32
Assuming I didn't screw up my estimate, Glacier was a no-brainer, even with up-front cost of two Arq licenses ($70).

This month is the first full month in which I'm not seeding my initial Arq backup to Glacier. I'm hopeful that the cost will be significantly lower than CrashPlan.

I'm using Crashplan now but when my subscription runs out I will switch to Arq+AWS Glacier. I'm currently around the 300GB mark for backup space. Using glacier this would cost me $3/month, about $36/year or half as much as I'm paying for Crashplan ($60 with a discount).

Even if it was more expensive for me, I would still switch, because I don't trust Crashplan completely. There have been stories from users of backups getting corrupted when they needed to recover, and the upload speed to Crashplan is so slow it took months for the full 300GB to upload (I'm getting around 0.5 - 2Mbps up on my 100Mbps/100Mbps connection, I believe they are artificially throttling it to discourage people from storing a ton of data). This means new data takes a long time to be 100% safe, especially when for example I dump my camera's memory to disk.

On top of that, if their upload speed is this low, their download speed probably is, too. If my data crashes, I need the backup yesterday. I can't wait a week to download the 300GB at 10Mbps.

I believe Amazon's speeds would be much higher.

Don't you need to pay a ton to actually get your data out of glacier?

Not if you're willing to wait a few hours - a delay of the same or smaller order of magnitude as the transfer is going to take anyway.

For example, suppose you're restoring 50 GB. If you want to start the retrieval 4 hours from now (the minimum), you'll pay $97. If you're willing to wait 10 hours, that drops to $43. 20, $25. 40, $16. Goes down to $7 at the limit.

You can play with the cost at http://liangzan.net/aws-glacier-calculator/

For me, the far more likely case would be 500GB, kept for a year. Even with 1000 hours (more than a month!!) for a restore, I'd still have to pay $125. CrashPlan lets me do this for free, and allows me arbitrary access to my backed up data to boot. It just seems like a better deal, unless you're really worried about data corruption in the cloud.

It's the same price for ~72h retrieval...

Still, it means your monthly price isn't actually what it seems. With 72 hour retrieval, you'll be paying about $14 a month, compared to CrashPlan's $5. And what if you need the data earlier? If you have bad luck and your hard drive crashes a month after you make your backup, you'll end up paying about $100 a month, at least for that month. CrashPlan's flat rate means you don't have to stress out about the fine print.

You have bigger problems if you need to recover from backup once a year.

Even at 5 years it still averages out to about $7 a month. CrashPlan is significantly cheaper, unless you want to bet against ever needing the backup. (Which may be sensible, I admit.)

That's ok. When that happens I'll gladly pay a premium to get my data fast. That should only happen once every few years though.

Pretty awesome to see this. When I used a Mac for work, I used Arq and set it up on my coworkers' computers (they were completely non-technical). It was very easy to use.

I'm curious what backup tools people use on Linux if they want to back up files on Glacier. I use git-annex[0] for certain files (it works well for pictures and media). The rest of my backup process is a fairly rudimentary (though effective) rsync script, but it doesn't use Glacier.

My current setup works fine for me, but I imagine there are better tools out there.

[0] https://git-annex.branchable.com/

I use my own script.

It tars a directory, naming the output with a hash of the original directory name. Then it encrypts it with gpg and breaks it into small parts (100M) so I can pace any needed Glacier restores so as not to break the bank. Then it runs par2 on each part, to make it more likely that I can recover from any file corruption. Then it uploads each part and the par2 files to an S3 bucket which is set (via the S3 admin web dashboard UI) to automatically transition the files to Glacier.

The shortcoming is it's not a whole-system backup. Also it doesn't do differential backups, though that's not a problem for me because I organize things such that old stuff doesn't change often if ever. It's dirt cheap, one-command simple, and feels pretty reliable... though I must admit I haven't tested a restore!

Do you mind sharing the script this with us? I currently have a NAS that I backup to and a couple external drives that the NAS backs up to (the most important backups). This is all painfully manual and I may write my own script sometime.

http://duply.net/ no gui but fairly easy to set up.

I'm using Arq since 2011 to backup my most important data to Amazon S3+Glacier and can highly recommend it.

Today v4 has been released and comes with new storage options (GreenQloud, DreamObjects, Google Cloud Storage, SFTP aka your own server), multiple backup targets, unified budget across S3 and S3/Glacier, Email notifications and many more clever features.

I love the addition of SFTP, and I hope to buy the update soon.

Can anyone recommend a SFTP backup provider?

My Arq backups are designed to be worst-case. I have other, local backup options in case of failure. I was using Glacier, but I ran into Arq3 sync problems and I need to re-upload all my data. Glacier is very slow from where I live. I assume SFTP will be a bit faster.

I'm not a customer anymore, but was very happy when I was. rsync.net is the perfect service for this.

arq (or any SFTP based client, including sshfs) will work perfectly with rsync.net.

The new-user-HN-discount is 10c per GB, per month, and there are no other (traffic/bandwidth/usage) costs. Our platform is ZFS and there are 7 daily snapshots for free.

We would be happy to serve you, as we've been serving thousands of users since 2001.

If you don't need a turnkey solution I'd just go with a cheap server provider like OVH/Online.net/Hetzner and set up an SFTP server there.

OVH has Swift/OpenStack storage service (hubiC) that makes Glacier look insanely expensive if we're talking about at least about 1TiB+ of backups. Can't tell anything about their reliability, though.

Doesn't seem like hubiC exposes a truly S3-compatible API, which is sad given that it seems to be based on OpenStack Swift.

backupsy.com provides low-power VPSes with 250GB of storage. Perfect for this. I may get a second one just for Arq...

BTW, another great product from the same developers have recently become available:

It's called Filosync and is like Dropbox but secure and with your own (or with Amazon) servers. Check out http://www.filosync.com/ for more information. And be warned, it's pricey!

My personal solution is to use the free Boxcryptor Classic [1] on top of Dropbox. I've actually replaced my entire Documents folder with a link symlink to its version in my Boxcryptor instance (something I was leery of doing directly in Dropbox, for privacy reasons). So now I get transparent encryption and sync on both of my computers. It's been working amazingly for about 6 months now.

[1] https://www.boxcryptor.com/en/classic

I did a test with BoxCryptor last year and was not too pleased. For enterprise use with the necessary master key, it's expensive too, and you still have the disadvantages of Dropbox. On the other hand, if you are a Dropbox user and willing to pay for BoxCryptor, the solution works flawlessly.

What do you mean by the disadvantages of Dropbox?

Also, keep in mind that Boxcryptor and Boxcryptor Classic are two different products. If sharing files in an encrypted way with other people or having a master key is part of your use case, Boxcryptor Classic is not a great choice. But if you just need a way to store your own files in the cloud, with seamless sync between machines, and without privacy concerns, Boxcryptor Classic has worked very well for me.

Site is down/slow for me. Google Cache: http://webcache.googleusercontent.com/search?q=cache:http://...

Maybe it's being served by Glacier?

Should be better now.

Way better. Thanks!

I like the idea of using Glacier as a Backup solution for ones devices. However one thing worries me: Looking at the Glacier pricing table[1] there is a section 'Request pricing'. This looks to me like there is a price of 5.5 cents per 1000 upload request. Considering Arq will upload multiple times an hour, this looks like it could amount to quite a bit. With two uploads per hour I arrive at 5$ per month, but there could be significantly more uploads. Even 5$ would already be a 50% price increase compared to only the storage pricing for 1TB of data.

Could anyone clarify whether my calculation is wrong?

[1] https://aws.amazon.com/glacier/pricing/

The way Arq splits files into chunks (to facilitate incremental backups), it averages $.05/GB in per-request Glacier fees for the initial backup. After the initial backup, per-request fees are typically not significant because it only uploads new/changed files.

2 uploads an hour = 48 uploads a day

48 a day * 31 days a month = 1488 uploads a month

5.5 cents per 1000 uploads

so this would cost roughly 1.5 * 5.5cents, so about $0.0825 a month.

There would be data and storage costs but I'm just going by your upload request calculations.

damn, I had a factor of 60 in there, for some reason I calculated 2 uploads per minute instead of per hour. Alright then, seems to be a fair price.

Glacier should be used for data that won't be changed frequently (e.g. purchased music/movies). Hence you can backup to glacier daily.

S3 is more suitable for things you are working on like codes.

What I couldn't find is whether Arq encrypts the data client side before uploading it. This has prevented me from using several other backup tools. Does anybody know?

Yes, it does. "All encryption is done before your data leave your computer" - http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/index.php

How does this compare to say using Tarsnap (apart from cost)?

Tarsnap's privacy policy is pretty terrible. Tarsnap reserves the right to "at their sole discretion" share your information. Even in the case where authorities don't go through due process. This is completely unacceptable to me. Privacy policy for a service like this should be "Warrant or GTFO".


I have this question too.

Am I the only one that would like to be able to setup a time range when it's allowed to use my bandwidth?

I'm traveling in hotels with shitty wifi most of the time. It's hard enough to browse so I'd really only like to backup while I'm sleeping. Also, in the interest of not hogging all the bandwidth I'd like it to stop by say 6am so that as guests are waking up they can use the bad internet.

> Am I the only one that would like to be able to setup a time range when it's allowed to use my bandwidth?

You can. After you setup a target open the Preferences window. Select the target therein and click the "Edit..." button.

The dialog that follows has an option to "Pause between [00:00] and [00:00]", where [00:00] is a drop-down which lets you pick the top of any hour of the day.

Big fan, the inclusion of DreamHost's DreamObjects is a huge improvement also. In most cases they are cheaper than Amazon's S3 storage. Still more expensive than Glacier...but DreamObjects doesn't have any of the crazy slow retrieval times or costs that Glacier does.

Two questions for Arq users:

1. In former versions, it was difficult to see what was actually part of the backup. Has that changed?

2. Is there any reliable way of calculating how much an Arq backup will cost? Storage costs are easy to calculate but with Amazon S3, changes etc. are a major cost factor.

Can someone tell me why I shouldn't be using BitTorrent Sync as a multi-location backup plan?

In other words, can someone sell me on the idea of paying for AWS storage when I have dirt cheap storage around my house and even a remote location that I can stuff a huge drive in.

If deleting/modifying a file at one location results in deletion/modification of a file on the "backup", then it's not a backup.

Certainly. I remember learning early on that RAID != backup, and an easy conceptualization of Sync is RAID 1 at the file/folder level.

I'd recommend that someone using Sync for backup purposes take snapshots of they're syncing for backup purposes.

I can't think of any reason you would back up to AWS if you already have an offsite backup solution, unless you don't think your offsite backup location is reliable enough.

If use BitTorrent Sync, does that mean all your data is sitting unencrypted at the remote location? I guess that would be one reason.

The "encryption secret" was implemented in version 1.2 of BitTorrent Sync: http://www.bittorrent.com/sync/developers/api - but for now you'll need an API key to generate them.

Alternatively, you could roll your own solution on top of Sync by encrypting your files on your own and creating a Sync folder of the encrypted files.

I was looking at Arq the other day and couldn't find if it had a bootable backup feature (like CC Cloner). Anyone know something about this?

Arq does not have bootable backups. It is primarily for long term off site versioned backups. Look at SuperDuper or CCC for a full metal bootable backup.

I generally prefer SuperDuper for its simplicity, and recommend it to most people.

CCC is not really harder to use, but presents a bunch more options which most people don't need and with which they may get into trouble. One great feature of CCC is the ability to do bootable backup to a remote volume. I have my MacBook set up to backup to a server in this fashion. However, this requires you to configure your remote server with root SSH access via certificates.

Thanks for pointing out CCC's ability to do a bootable backup to a remote volume. I've had the question on how to do that many times and it is one of those things that is hard to google for when you're not sure how to ask.

I pine for a Mac backup service that would let me backup from anywhere, and in the event of failure, I could fire up a new Mac, point it at the service, and boot to restore all over the net.

The problem with bootable backups is that you need root access to do the types of low level disk writing required. Thus, you need a very trusted environment.

That said, you can also use CCC and SuperDuper to backup to a disk image file. This would not be directly bootable, but it can be copied to a new hard drive which would then be bootable. Backing up to remote disk images is much slower than the root method to drive method.

If you're on a newer Mac, there's no need any more - Internet Recovery installs the system onto a blank HD

I think the advantage of a bootable backup is that it is there, and you can just boot from it (or copy it to an external hard drive if it was on a remote volume). The point is that the backup was already in the right format. I think internet recovery is more about restoring from a time machine backup, which takes forever.

Or restore the OS, download Arq, then restore from the Internet, which takes ten forevers. :)

Anyone using duplicity or duplicati as open-source alternatives to arq?

The purchase link is incredibly well hidden. Anyone find it?

That's not good! :) (It's my site) Here's the link: https://store.haystacksoftware.com/store?product=arq4

Had no trouble finding it earlier, but I just clicked the Store button in the nav and skipped the product page entirely.

http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/ links to ?product=arq3 though, text "per computer for Arq 3".

Please consider integrating or linking http://liangzan.net/aws-glacier-calculator/ (as found in the HN comments somewhere around here), it's been invaluable when talking with people about Arq today.

Especially for you: http://www.amazon.com/Dont-Make-Think-Revisited-Usability/dp...

pay close attention to the part about providing a clear call-to-action. :-)

But... Tarsnap...

I love Tarsnap, but $0.30/GB for Tarsnap backup is very different from $0.01/GB for Glacier cold storage.

For my own Mac I backup to a sort of off-site NAS with TimeMachine, which is fine for all but the worst-case, meteor to the city situations. However, Glacier makes a perfect option for me to deal with this actual worst-case scenario.

Guidelines | FAQ | Support | API | Security | Lists | Bookmarklet | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact