New on LowEndTalk? Please Register and read our Community Rules.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
All new Registrations are manually reviewed and approved, so a short delay after registration may occur before your account becomes active.
Comments
How about offline storage? Buy hard drives, either external/USB drives or get a drive dock for use with internal drives. Store in a safe place.
As someone who also has 20 years of data saved, I use an encrypted online storage for things that I may need quick access to, like financial documents. For the rest, consider investing in hard drives, either external/USB drives or internal drives with a drive dock. Store most of your 'stuff' there, and keep them in a safe place. I ask myself (and my wallet) if I really need that lot of photos/videos from 18 years ago readily accessible online, or can they be on a hard drive locked in a safe place? Even copying them onto 2 drives, and keeping each copy in separate locations, will be cheaper than being online.
By combining both online and offline storage, you get the convenience of accessing your most important files online (and keeping them updated), and the security of having the bulk of the older stuff accessible with a little more effort (grabbing a USB drive).
this type of business is the best for @c1vhosting
Thanks for the mention @Void
@vjunkie there is no getting around it: buying the HDDs, building the server, and running it locally is definitely going to be your cheapest option.
However, we are in the business of providing servers so I get it if that is something you don't have the time for or want to take advantage of other things you might get in a datacenter/colocation environment.
We have 2 affordable options that can get you between 12 and 24 LFF disks (HDD) in a single logical device. Disk sizes that likely have the price-to-size ratio for you: 8TB, 10TB, and 14TB.
With a relatively simple base config:
Additionally, we can also LTO (lease-to-own) the above chassis. Base cost would be:
Both of the above options you'll own the hardware outright, and would have the ability to ship us your own drives as you want or purchase them outright from us at a more favorable 1-time fee.
CPU changes, RAM changes, SSD changes, and traffic/bandwidth changes are all reasonable and do-able, was just kicking out the default starter package. If you need to transcode, there's always room to toss a Tesla P4 into the 2U units
You need 4Mbps for high quality 1080p video in H265 or AV1.
This is 1.8GB per hour, 43GB per 24h,
Recording of 10 years straight without stopping would take just 157TB of storage.
Your family was really rich to record that much with VHS, no wonder now you dont have money for drives /s
You obviously have different type of content and nobody can suggest anything that could indeed help you. We dont even know if its video files, maybe you have secret archive.org files.
If you seriously have VHS digitalized content then transcode it and that will slim down your requiremwnts to few TBs.
If its porn then consider deleting that hassle alltogether and spend time on something that improves your life or buy a subscription so these people will actually get their payouts for their job and you wont waste time trying to archive some porn. You never gonna watch again 99% of that anyway, just remove files that you didnt accessed for long time with simple bash script.
There is few points you need to consider in order to know what exactly you want
the old solution of dropbox you went with it because it is cheap and you enjoyed some of its features but are you really willing to pay for those features
your old dropbox solution has the following features
1- it is always online , so anywhere and anytime you can access it
2- it is backed up (since this is cloud storage service you expect them to have copies of your date in case of disaster) although you should always keep another copy somewhere else
3- it is cheap and no upfront cost
your options are
1- online and backed up with small upfront cost
rent a dedi with enough storage + buy number of external disks or tape and backup everything on them locally
this will be expensive and in the range of 1$-2$ / TB per month plus the initial cost to locally backup which can be approx 10-15$/tb if you get used disks
2- online and backed up with no upfront cost
rent 2 dedi preferable from 2 different providers in 2 different locations and keep your data synced between them
this solution cost 2-4$ / TB with no upfront cost
3- only local :
buy a server in your home if you have space and dont mind the noise and put your stuff locally
you need to have another copy preferably outside your home as well
the running cost of this solution depend on how expensive electricity where you live plus if you need to access it from outside add internet costs
this will cost approx 20-30$$/tb initially + electricity and internet costs
once you reach this level of storage storage is no longer cheap
At best VHS is 480p. If the digitization process put it any higher, a re-encode could not only use a better codec but downsample to 480p without any real quality hit. Then he could let whatever player or TV he uses in the future upscale the image.
Yea, VHS is digital form is 480p, but I've put 1080p HQ video size as context to how ridiculous is 300TB usage even for 1080p videos. You just cannot rewatch it in your life.
I do not think that library has anything to do with VHS, but if yes then he can cut size by 90%+.
a lot of offtopic going on here
Who cares? OP is gone anyways since he realized that he won't get 200-300TB at $100/y.
I am not gone, I've been watching the responses. For 200TB I'm willing to spend $250.00 - $350.00/month.
Well, 200TB cold storage would be $200 at 1fichier.com (just get a premium account and extend 196 times 1TB at $12/y). It's supported by rclone as far as know.
Plus I'm already paying $100.00 / mo for 300TB, but that will end in December.
start trimming aggressively and compress/re encode where possible. get it down to 100TB and your options may widen.
strongly consider home NAS as well
Not sure if I would trust 200-300TB of my precious data to them:
https://www.trustpilot.com/review/1fichier.com
2 Star Rating on 100+ reviews…
Azure Storage Reserved Capacity Archive might be interesting if you have at least 2 copies of your data (e.g. in your house + in parents house). Price goes down to 84usd/100TB. Retrieving the data will be astronomically expensive though, but if your house just burned down and your parents house got flooded, simultaneously, then the huge egress bill will be your smallest worry…
This is LowEndTalk not UltraHighEndTalk.
But in all seriousness, owning the hard drives outright/building your own server is your cheapest bet since any renting solution is going to entail paying a profit margin to the server host.
Since you have until December, if you're willing to gamble a bit, you can wait until near Black Friday or watch year-round for any flash sales on hard drives. I recently bought a 18 TB hard drive (advertised as 18, actual capacity is 16 TB) for $292 including tax. Getting enough to 300 TB is $5500 one-time, or is analogous to $460/mo for just 12 months.
I'm not sure if at that scale you may even be able to negotiate a bulk discount with wherever you choose to buy the hard drives from...
They answered when I asked what their budget was.. It was a LOT higher than that..
Why not just upload videos to youtube and keep images on cloud
Well, they are no GDrive that's for sure but they've been around for a long, long time and when they were more popular (aka used to run insane deals) i didn't really hear much negativity about them.
I know but i figured it's probably per year (and $200-300/y or $100/y what the big difference...). This is LET after all.
The price is great. How long has this service been available? Can it continue to operate?
$100/yr is too expensive, we need $10/year recurring
Their are no TOS on their web page, let alone what type of storage they are using. ( S3 is built on the backend of raw storage). This seems like a 1 person cash grab. Someone put in another thread that their servers go down almost daily.
>
Hi,
the best we can do for you to solve the problem:
physical bare metal server:
HP HW Raidcontroller
-> Raid 5 => 200 TB space with at least some minimum protection that 1 drive can fail at the same time
-> Raid 6 => 180 TB space with some bigger protection that 2 drives can fail at the same time
100 TB Traffic per month included
-- upgradeable ( so more disks could be added any time if your needs grow )
Price per month: 299,- EUR / 310 USD
Price one time: 199,- EUR / 210 USD
Minimum contract duration: 24 months
With a minimum contract of 12 months = +20%
with a minimum contract of 6 monnth = +30%
with a minimum contract of 1 month = +40%
on the pricings...
Serverlocation: Germany - Frankfurt/Main
The same is also available as Dell server ( if you prefer this brand over HP )
Have you made any conclusions about the project yet? Not asking if you have decided on a vendor, just if you have figured out which direction you are going to go in.
What? No. At best, you could be talking some non-standard setup, but you sure as fuck will lose arrays with failed raid 5 rebuilds. You sound like it didn't happen to you once that it doesn't happen regularly. Even with hardware raid and enterprise rated raid drives, this still happens in the real world.
There’s a big gap between a URE on a remaining healthy disk during a rebuild and a remaining healthy disk completely failing during a rebuild
RAID 5 naysayers think they are one and the same, which may have been true in the past for some dog tier implementations
I can't grok your response except to say you seem to keep speaking from inexperience and not experience. Go back a few years and search TLER for all the people complaining they have the right hardware and settings and still lost an array.
Besides the risks of RAID-5 or RAID-6 failures that go up with so many TBs, besides the cost of hosting/renting, besides maybe buying your own hardware and co-locating it, have you also considered the time it would take to upload that much data? Distance and quality of the backbone may be a factor, for example, if the provider has good peering and is a couple cities/states/provinces/countries away where you can get 100 Mbps uninterrupted, it would take 35 weeks to upload 200TB. Compare that to buying 22TB hard drives (with 20TB usable space) and copying over USB, that would fill each 20TB in 48 hours, or about 20 days to backup 200TB.
Also, I am assuming you're looking for plain storage, not backups. A 'backup' means you have data in one place, and want to make a copy elsewhere for online access and/or copy in case of data loss. It sounds to me you're looking to keep everything outside of the home, so if that were me and I needed everything hosted, I would buy or build 2 servers, put each in separate datacenters, and keep the two in sync. Run checksums and disk checks on a regular basis. A parity-based RAID, and keeping everything on one box, are both too risky with that much important data, in my opinion.
It is indeed quite a bit of data.
Colocation would be the cheapest option with that much data.
s3/backblaze b2 would be the next best option but also yeah $$$$.
Sometimes people forget that it will take awhile to move that much data but it doesn't fully concern them as its not their bandwidth being taken at their home so it doesn't matter.