 |
 |
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