 |
 |
On Thu, Mar 1, 2018 at 11:11 AM, Kyle Breneman <[log in to unmask]> wrote: > 1. A combination of both. Around 60TB already digitized, with over 100TB > more footage still in analog form. > 2. Portable hard drives, a RAID, a Mac Pro tower. > 3. No, we do not have a digitization workflow defined yet. > 4. Define "quick access." I think that we do want "quick access" unless > we also have something like a local NAS for immediate access to the files > and then AWS strictly as secondary backup copies. > Unless you move your computing to Amazon as well, I wouldn't think quick access would be viable. First of all, S3 is slow and works very differently than filesystems people are accustomed to interacting with -- I'd never use it for video processing. Even if that weren't a factor, the network latency and high bandwidth charges would be deal busters. Even just storing the stuff in S3 so it can quickly be accessed is going to be high -- 200TB is going to run you over 5 grand a month. I'd be much more tempted to use Amazon for preservation only. I would guess the Snowball devices and service fees to get your data up there and sit in an S3 bucket for one day while it gets transitioned to Glacier to run about a grand, with monthly charges after that running a little over $800. In case of disaster, you can recover the videos affordably enough (a few grand) via Snowball. For ongoing workflow, there would be the question of how to get material up there. Uploading huge files doesn't work well so you'd probably want to ship drives or use Snowball which will be significant. You could do backup yourself as Chris describes, but don't underestimate labor, facilities, verifying backups, bandwidth/logistics of getting the info to multiple places, etc. Glacier will protect the integrity of your data which provides much more protection than simply backing up to tape or drive and trusting all will be good. kyle