 |
 |
ah good. then we are agreeing. strike the whole disagree with ed portion of my email. also i like the pelican idea too. it reminds me of dick cheney in an undisclosed location. On Thu, Aug 27, 2009 at 1:15 PM, Edward M. Corrado <[log in to unmask]>wrote: > 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 >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>> >>>>