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
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>