Re: AWS or Microsoft storage

It's cheap to store but expensive to retrieve

Still, it's still a good choice, it's not all the time we need to rescue some backup

On Wed, 4 Dec 2019 at 12:40, Clay Jackson (cjackson) <Clay.Jackson_at_quest.com> wrote:

> I use Oracle’s “archival” storage for about 500Gb (soon to be 1Tb) of
> “offsite backup” for my home systems – costs me $.02/month. At least with
> Oracle, there’s no “ingress” (write) charge and it’s reasonably fast, even
> over a 10Mbit Internet connection; but , retrieval costs $$ (forget the
> exact amount, I only test it every few months.
>
>
>
> *Clay Jackson*
>
>
>
> *From:* oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org <oracle-l-bounce_at_freelists.org> *On
> Behalf Of *Ram Raman
> *Sent:* Tuesday, December 3, 2019 6:15 PM
> *To:* ORACLE-L <oracle-l_at_freelists.org>
> *Subject:* AWS or Microsoft storage
>
>
>
> *CAUTION:* This email originated from outside of the organization. Do not
> follow guidance, click links, or open attachments unless you recognize the
> sender and know the content is safe.
>
>
>
>
> All,
>
>
>
> Traditionally, in the places that I have been, the tape backups of
> databases were sent over to companies like Iron Mountan. However, with
> Amazon or other companies offering storage cheap (I hear they only charge
> for reading not writing, true?), storing backups there is being floated as
> a possible solution. Has anyone here used Amazon or other such options for
> storing their DB backups. What are their experiences. Was data retrieval
> fast enough. Plus any risk related to security?
>
>
>
> Ram.
>

--
http://www.freelists.org/webpage/oracle-l