Please add ability to back up to Glacier

8 posts / 0 new
Last post
#1 Fri, 05/03/2013 - 09:14
orangehand

Please add ability to back up to Glacier

As per subject! It's a tenth of the price.

Fri, 05/03/2013 - 10:11
andreychek

Howdy,

Thanks for the suggestion!

That is indeed something Jamie is looking into.

It's not a good system as a primary backup, as the restore process is capable of taking quite some time.

However, it's an excellent place for a secondary off-site backup.

I'll mention it to Jamie again to make sure that shows up in Virtualmin sooner rather than later :-)

-Eric

Wed, 07/03/2013 - 08:36
Mostafa
Mostafa's picture

I highly recommend this feature too. S3 API is probably similar to Glacier ... So not much development is needed.

Fri, 05/02/2014 - 12:10
cedral

I need an offsite backup in case my onsite one gets whacked with my computer. You all keep saying this is not a good solution because it is slow. fast, cheap, good. you can have 2 of these 3. let your customers decide which ones they want rather than doing it for them. I personally want cheap and good more than I want fast in my once a month offsite backup.

Sun, 04/02/2017 - 18:30 (Reply to #4)
volk

Because most people will not wait a week until you get their site up running again. If your server has a problem and you need to recover all the data first it can take you days or even weeks. You may already have lost all the customers by that time. This assuming your restore is not failing and you don't need to start from scratch again.

Sat, 02/27/2016 - 18:11
emotler

It's cheaper as long as you are using it for the right thing (long term i.e. glacial storage) and have read the small print and have provisioned your retrieval capacity.

Check this out: https://medium.com/@karppinen/how-i-ended-up-paying-150-for-a-single-60gb-download-from-amazon-glacier-6cb77b288c3e#.ksmsucbhc

If it's added to Virtualmin it needs a strong caveat. IMHO.

Sun, 04/02/2017 - 18:27
volk

emotler made an excellent point. While Glacier is very cheap storage it should probably not used for regular backups because I have read horror stories about people trying to recover data. Its more like its name tells you, a way to send and time freeze them, or at least very rarely retrieve data. Archives seems like a good case.

Not only its expensive to retrieve data but the problem is that its very, very slow. You can up waiting days...Backup data normally is something you need to do quickly in order to restore a service. While with Glacier you don't have total data loss because at least the data is somewhere, you may up losing anyway because for some people how fast they can recover is just as important as the recovery itself.

Thu, 06/29/2017 - 05:55
qisback

Amazon already provide a process to do this if required, you can configure a lifecycle rule to migrate S3 objects into Glacier.

I use Glacier as a final resort option if all else fails purely due to the slow speed and high cost for restores.