The only scenario I can think of where we'd need to do a full restore is if the server crashes, and for those cases, we are going to have typical short-term imaging setups in place. Our needs beyond that are to make sure our original files are backed up redundantly in some non-volatile location so that in the event a file on the local server becomes corrupt, we have a high fidelity copy of the original on hand to use to restore it. Since data decay I assume happens rather infrequently and over a long period of time, it's not important for us to be able to restore all the files at once. Like I said, if the server catches on fire and crashes, we have regular off-site tape-based storage to fix those short-term problems.

Josh Welker


-----Original Message-----
From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf Of Cary Gordon
Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 10:27 AM
To: [log in to unmask]
Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Digital collection backups

Restoring 3 Tb from Glacier is $370. Add about $90 if you use AWS Import/Export (you provide the device).

Hopefully, this is not something that you would do often.

Cary

On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 8:14 AM, Matt Schultz <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
> Josh,
>
> Totally understand the resource constraints and the price comparison 
> up-front. As Roy alluded to earlier, it pays with Glacier to envision 
> what your content retrieval scenarios might be, because that $368 
> up-front could very easily balloon in situations where you are needing 
> to restore a
> collection(s) en-masse at a later date. Amazon Glacier as a service 
> makes their money on that end. In MetaArchive there is currently no 
> charge for collection retrieval for the sake of a restoration. You are 
> also subject and powerless over the long-term to Amazon's price hikes with Glacier.
> Because we are a Cooperative, our members collaboratively work 
> together annually to determine technology preferences, vendors, 
> pricing, cost control, etc. You have a direct seat at the table to 
> help steer the solution in your direction.
>
> On Fri, Jan 11, 2013 at 10:09 AM, Joshua Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>
>> Matt,
>>
>> I appreciate the information. At that price, it looks like 
>> MetaArchive would be a better option than most of the other services 
>> mentioned in this thread. At this point, I think it is going to come 
>> down to a LOCKSS solution such as what MetaArchive provides or Amazon 
>> Glacier. We anticipate our digital collection growing to about 3TB in 
>> the first two years. With Glacier, that would be $368 per year vs 
>> $3,072 per year for MetaArchive and LOCKSS. As much as I would like 
>> to support library initiatives like LOCKSS, we are a small 
>> institution with a very small budget, and the pricing of Glacier is starting to look too good to pass up.
>>
>> Josh Welker
>>
>>
>> -----Original Message-----
>> From: Code for Libraries [mailto:[log in to unmask]] On Behalf 
>> Of Matt Schultz
>> Sent: Friday, January 11, 2013 8:49 AM
>> To: [log in to unmask]
>> Subject: Re: [CODE4LIB] Digital collection backups
>>
>> Hi Josh,
>>
>> Glad you are looking into LOCKSS as a potential solution for your 
>> needs and that you are thinking beyond simple backup solutions for 
>> more long-term preservation. Here at MetaArchive Cooperative we make 
>> use of LOCKSS to preserve a range of content/collections from our member institutions.
>>
>> The nice thing (I think) about our approach and our use of LOCKSS as 
>> an embedded technology is that you as an institution retain full 
>> control over your collections in the preservation network and get to 
>> play an active and on-going part in their preservation treatment over 
>> time. Storage costs in MetaArchive are competitive ($1/GB/year), and 
>> with that you get up to 7 geographic replications. MetaArchive is 
>> international at this point and so your collections really do achieve 
>> some safe distance from any disasters that may hit close to home.
>>
>> I'd be more than happy to talk with you further about your collection 
>> needs, why we like LOCKSS, and any interest your institution may have 
>> in being part of a collaborative approach to preserving your content 
>> above and beyond simple backup. Feel free to contact me directly.
>>
>> Matt Schultz
>> Program Manager
>> Educopia Institute, MetaArchive Cooperative 
>> http://www.metaarchive.org [log in to unmask]
>> 616-566-3204
>>
>> On Thu, Jan 10, 2013 at 5:20 PM, Joshua Welker <[log in to unmask]> wrote:
>>
>> > Hi everyone,
>> >
>> > We are starting a digitization project for some of our special 
>> > collections, and we are having a hard time setting up a backup 
>> > system that meets the long-term preservation needs of digital 
>> > archives. The backup mechanisms currently used by campus IT are 
>> > short-term full-server
>> backups.
>> > What we are looking for is more granular, file-level backup over 
>> > the very long term. Does anyone have any recommendations of 
>> > software or some service or technique? We are looking into LOCKSS 
>> > but haven't dug
>> too deeply yet.
>> > Can anyone who uses LOCKSS tell me a bit of their experiences with it?
>> >
>> > Josh Welker
>> > Electronic/Media Services Librarian College Liaison University 
>> > Libraries Southwest Baptist University
>> > 417.328.1624
>> >
>>
>>
>>
>> --
>> Matt Schultz
>> Program Manager
>> Educopia Institute, MetaArchive Cooperative 
>> http://www.metaarchive.org [log in to unmask]
>> 616-566-3204
>>
>
>
>
> --
> Matt Schultz
> Program Manager
> Educopia Institute, MetaArchive Cooperative http://www.metaarchive.org 
> [log in to unmask]
> 616-566-3204



-- 
Cary Gordon
The Cherry Hill Company
http://chillco.com