 |
 |
Hi Roslyn, I probably wasn't clear.... I didn't mean to say don't use cloud storage if you think it is a good solution, in many cases it could be. I meant that if you really want to preserve your data you need to do more than put it in the cloud (or for that matter on a local storage device). It is not a panacea. Just like if you were housing it locally you need to make sure you have redundant copies. Edward Rosalyn Metz wrote: > I have to agree with Ed. You should have a good policy in place for backing > up your data. Just throwing it on a server isn't a policy. > > At the same time I would have to disagree with Ed. You should look at S3 as > if it was your own server. What is the guarantee that you supply to your > users with your own server. The snap server we use here (instead of S3) is > the back up to a back up system already in place. > > > On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 9:52 AM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > > >> Rosalyn's post made me think of one more thing.... if you are looking into >> outside entities (such as we are), what are the terms of service and what >> guarantee do they offer they won't lose your data? I believe that A3 does >> not offer any guarantee, so if you go with them, you probably want to have >> some other form of storage as well. Even if they offered a guarantee, what >> good is it once they loose your documents you were trying to preserve? >> >> Edward Corrado >> >> >> >> >> Rosalyn Metz wrote: >> >> >>> Hi Edward, >>> >>> Might I suggest you look into cloud computing services if you're looking >>> at >>> different options. (I know you're all shocked I suggested it). If our >>> budget weren't so abysmal (and going to get worse) we would be using it >>> right now rather than the snap server we purchased with leftover funds. >>> The >>> benefits of using the cloud is of course the elasticity it offers you. >>> The >>> negative is that you have to pay to put your files into the cloud and then >>> pay again to take them out (and since we've already been slashed 30% and >>> are >>> guaranteed another slash...that idea was shot down). >>> >>> Of course the major player out there is Amazon S3. The problem is that >>> you >>> can't use S3 via Amazon's Web Management Console. But there is a company >>> called RightScale (http://www.rightscale.com/index.php) which has a web >>> management console that allows you to upload files quickly and easily >>> without having to write scripts and what not. >>> >>> Anyway, just my two cents. >>> >>> Rosalyn >>> >>> >>> >>> On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 8:10 AM, Edward Iglesias >>> <[log in to unmask]>wrote: >>> >>> >>> >>> >>>> As I was trying to figure out what to do with half a terabyte of >>>> archival TIFFS it occurred to me that perhaps someone else had this >>>> problem. We are starting to produce massive amounts of digital >>>> objects (videos, archival TIFFS, audio interviews). Up until now we >>>> have been dealing with ways to display them to the public. Now we are >>>> starting to look at "dark archives" like OCLC's digital archive >>>> product. I would welcome any suggestions from those of you who have >>>> dealt with this on an archival level. It's one thing to stick the >>>> stuff up on a server, but then what? Our CIO suggested storage >>>> appliances like this one >>>> >>>> >>>> http://www.drobo.com/products/index.php >>>> >>>> but I am wary of the proprietary RAID system. >>>> >>>> Thanks in advance, >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>> ~~~~~~~~~~~~~ >>>> Edward Iglesias >>>> Systems Librarian >>>> Central Connecticut State University >>>> >>>> >>>> >>>>