Google Drive Price Slashed to $9.99 / month for 1TB storage

[overscan (PaulMM)]

100GB is now $1.99 / month, 1TB $9.99 / month.


Its now a pretty viable place to store your pictures - with Google+ Auto Backup software installed by Picasa on your PC all photos can be auto synced to the Google Drive space.

 

[Stargazer]

100GB is now $1.99 / month, 1TB $9.99 / month.

Its now a pretty viable place to store your pictures - with Google+ Auto Backup software installed by Picasa on your PC all photos can be auto synced to the Google Drive space.

Thanks Paul. I have a small Google Drive account but I'm very satisfied with the service and interface so I may go for that offer.

So far I have stored the bulk of my most important files onto SkyDrive (now OneDrive) and Avast Backup but I've experienced some trouble with the former (after all, it's Microsoft...) while the latter is just, well... a backup and doesn't offer a practical interface nor the possibility to share files with others.

 

[Hobbes]

Convenient IF you don't mind Google getting its dirty little paws on all your data...

 

[Rickshaw]

Convenient IF you don't mind Google getting its dirty little paws on all your data...

It also assumes that communications is always going to be up when you most need your data. If your network connection dies or a router between your ISP and your data dies, you won't be able to get at your data.

 

[Dragon029]

To be fair, if that happens, it's only temporarily unavailable. If your hard drive or SSD fails, the data is gone forever.


The main reason I wouldn't bother with this is simply because the cost to upload / download data could get expensive if you don't have an unlimited plan.

 

[sferrin]

RAID NAS - the only way to go.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

RAID NAS - the only way to go.

Right up until some bastard nicks your RAID NAS and your PC. Or your house burns down.

 

[sferrin]

RAID NAS - the only way to go.

Right up until some bastard nicks your RAID NAS and your PC. Or your house burns down.

True.

 

[sublight_]

That is about 1/10 of the price of Amazon AWS. If you are paranoid about Google looking at your data, then encrypt it before it goes to the cloud, with a free open source encryption package. Worried about government backdoors in the encryption software? They are working on an audit of the software now.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

RAID NAS - the only way to go.

Right up until some bastard nicks your RAID NAS and your PC. Or your house burns down.

True.

Some combination is ideal. Online backup for photos or other things you really don't want to lose. NAS is fine for things you can replace in the event of fire/earthquake etc.

 

[Stargazer]

Can someone please explain the acronym NAS? Doesn't ring a bell to my French ears...

 

[SOC]

NAS = Network-attached Storage.

 

[overscan (PaulMM)]

Like:

 

[Stargazer]

Thanks, folks!

 

[sublight_]

NO! I will permit none of you buy a QNAP!!!!!!!!! If you want NAS, I can tell you exactly how to build one, cheaper faster, and more reliable than the QNAP.

The QNAP will suffer from bit rot and uncorrectable RAID errors. A ZFS based NAS can detect down to single bit errors and automatically correct them. QNAP and other even more expensive storage area networks cant do that.

 

[sferrin]

NO! I will permit none of you buy a QNAP!!!!!!!!! If you want NAS, I can tell you exactly how to build one, cheaper faster, and more reliable than the QNAP.

The QNAP will suffer from bit rot and uncorrectable RAID errors. A ZFS based NAS can detect down to single bit errors and automatically correct them. QNAP and other even more expensive storage area networks cant do that.

So far I've been having good luck with DROBO. (Knock on wood.)

 

[sublight_]

NO! I will permit none of you buy a QNAP!!!!!!!!! If you want NAS, I can tell you exactly how to build one, cheaper faster, and more reliable than the QNAP.

The QNAP will suffer from bit rot and uncorrectable RAID errors. A ZFS based NAS can detect down to single bit errors and automatically correct them. QNAP and other even more expensive storage area networks cant do that.

So far I've been having good luck with DROBO. (Knock on wood.)

As your storage size goes up, the number of these uncorrectable errors increase, even with DROBO. If DROBO or QNAP would switch over to ZFS, that would help, but neither has plans to do so....

 

[Rickshaw]

NO! I will permit none of you buy a QNAP!!!!!!!!! If you want NAS, I can tell you exactly how to build one, cheaper faster, and more reliable than the QNAP.

The QNAP will suffer from bit rot and uncorrectable RAID errors. A ZFS based NAS can detect down to single bit errors and automatically correct them. QNAP and other even more expensive storage area networks cant do that.

So far I've been having good luck with DROBO. (Knock on wood.)

As your storage size goes up, the number of these uncorrectable errors increase, even with DROBO. If DROBO or QNAP would switch over to ZFS, that would help, but neither has plans to do so....

ZFS is better in many ways but suffers from performance overloads when your disks reach >80% full. In enterprise use, you invariably have to keep them much lower than that, usually about 60% to allow growth reaction times before they reach the 80% limit. Not many people are willing to pay to be able to only use about 60% of the rated size of the disk(s) they've purchased.

I've been using a QNAP now for about 12 months. Never had a problem with it and for home NAS it is more than adequate for my needs. With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

 

[sublight_]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

 

[Grey Havoc]

It will be interesting to see how long online and cloud storage systems will continue to exist given current events.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/us-to-relinquish-remaining-control-over-the-internet/2014/03/14/0c7472d0-abb5-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_print.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/15/ex-bush-admin-official-internet-giveaway-weakens-cybersecurity-opens-door-to-web-tax/

 

[sublight_]

It will be interesting to see how long online and cloud storage systems will continue to exist given current events.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/business/technology/us-to-relinquish-remaining-control-over-the-internet/2014/03/14/0c7472d0-abb5-11e3-adbc-888c8010c799_print.html

http://dailycaller.com/2014/03/15/ex-bush-admin-official-internet-giveaway-weakens-cybersecurity-opens-door-to-web-tax/

Respectfully, this has no bearing at all on cloud storage. This is all about domain naming on the internet. Anybody theoretically, at any time, could create their own domain naming system and silently coexist on the internet. If the so-called "authorities" take your domain name down, they only remove its name from the agreed upon registry of domain names. The site is still on the internet. It still has an IP address.

I welcome the bullshit from our new internet overlords. They only spur the public in taking their internet back from the clutches of the empire....

 

[Rickshaw]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

 

[sublight_]

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

You don't have a ZFS nas, have never built one, you have never used one. You have no clue about its performance. freeNAS as the name suggest IS FREE and open source. The price of building a freeNAS is less than a QNAP or DROBO or Synology. I don't know where you live, but in the USA a terabyte drive is CHEAP.

The point of this discussion is keeping data safe. A ZFS + cloud backup solution does this. A system vulnerable to silent data corruption does not. You'll just be backing bad data up to the cloud and not even know it.

 

[Rickshaw]

Sublight, simply because I disagree with you, there is no need to be abusive. I am an IT professional who works with ZFS every day at the Enterprise level. I am well aware of its potentials and as I pointed out, its performance costs, which you keep discounting far to happily. :

 

[sferrin]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

Nothing particularly expensive about ZFS

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS551US552&q=eonnas+pro+800&gs_l=hp..6.41l1115.0.0.0.9231...........0.

 

[sublight_]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

Nothing particularly expensive about ZFS

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS551US552&q=eonnas+pro+800&gs_l=hp..6.41l1115.0.0.0.9231...........0.

It comes with 4 gigs, but I'd really want 8 to 16 gigs of RAM in that thing. It's got standard DIMM slots inside so that may be an option.
But I'd rather roll my own and use freeNAS.

 

[Rickshaw]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

Nothing particularly expensive about ZFS

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS551US552&q=eonnas+pro+800&gs_l=hp..6.41l1115.0.0.0.9231...........0.

But, as I keep pointing out, you are effectively only able to utilise ~60% of the disk capacity. ZFS suffers performance penalties when it fills above 80%. Therefore, if you utilise ZFS, you end up with slightly more than only half the capacity of the disks. Are you willing to pay for a system where your filesystem capacity is only slightly half of the disks you've purchased?

 

[sferrin]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

Nothing particularly expensive about ZFS

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS551US552&q=eonnas+pro+800&gs_l=hp..6.41l1115.0.0.0.9231...........0.

But, as I keep pointing out, you are effectively only able to utilise ~60% of the disk capacity. ZFS suffers performance penalties when it fills above 80%. Therefore, if you utilise ZFS, you end up with slightly more than only half the capacity of the disks. Are you willing to pay for a system where your filesystem capacity is only slightly half of the disks you've purchased?

In a mirrored system you only get 50% so ~60% is an improvement.

 

[sublight_]

But, as I keep pointing out....

But as you keep thread poisoning... Anything that anyone needs to know about ZFS can be found in the wiki. They also can try it out for themselves for free.

 

[Rickshaw]

But, as I keep pointing out....

But as you keep thread poisoning... Anything that anyone needs to know about ZFS can be found in the wiki. They also can try it out for themselves for free.

And what is wrong with presenting an alternative viewpoint, sublight? It isn't "thread poisoning" it's telling people about an aspect of ZFS which you refuse to admit exists.

 

[sferrin]

But, as I keep pointing out....

But as you keep thread poisoning... Anything that anyone needs to know about ZFS can be found in the wiki. They also can try it out for themselves for free.

And what is wrong with presenting an alternative viewpoint, sublight? It isn't "thread poisoning" it's telling people about an aspect of ZFS which you refuse to admit exists.

Are you going to screw up yet another thread? I don't see you acknowledging that mirroring only gives you 50% disk capacity.

 

[Rickshaw]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

Nothing particularly expensive about ZFS

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS551US552&q=eonnas+pro+800&gs_l=hp..6.41l1115.0.0.0.9231...........0.

But, as I keep pointing out, you are effectively only able to utilise ~60% of the disk capacity. ZFS suffers performance penalties when it fills above 80%. Therefore, if you utilise ZFS, you end up with slightly more than only half the capacity of the disks. Are you willing to pay for a system where your filesystem capacity is only slightly half of the disks you've purchased?

In a mirrored system you only get 50% so ~60% is an improvement.

Actually, that is incorrect. Even with a mirrored system, utilising non-ZFS filesystems you actually should only utilise 80% of your filesystem to allow for growth. While it is a fallacy to assume that you're only using 50% of your disk space in a mirrored system, in reality you are utilising all your disks.

 

[Rickshaw]

But, as I keep pointing out....

But as you keep thread poisoning... Anything that anyone needs to know about ZFS can be found in the wiki. They also can try it out for themselves for free.

And what is wrong with presenting an alternative viewpoint, sublight? It isn't "thread poisoning" it's telling people about an aspect of ZFS which you refuse to admit exists.

Are you going to screw up yet another thread? I don't see you acknowledging that mirroring only gives you 50% disk capacity.

Excuse me? You really seem to have problems tolerating alternative viewpoints. I have acknowledged it and pointed out the fallacy in assuming that. The mirrored disks are in use, they are not, not being used as you and sublight are attempting to imply. :

 

[sferrin]

With mirrored disks, I don't have to worry about data loss from disk failure.

Your mirrored disks don't protect you from silent data corruption. ZFS does.

And as I pointed out, at considerable cost. Home users aren't that concerned with corruption, they are concerned about price and as the price of storage is still basically plateaued due to the Thai floods of 2 years ago, ZFS is seem still as too specialised and too expensive due to the already mentioned performance issues with it.

Nothing particularly expensive about ZFS

https://www.google.com/search?sourceid=navclient&aq=&oq=&ie=UTF-8&rlz=1T4GGNI_enUS551US552&q=eonnas+pro+800&gs_l=hp..6.41l1115.0.0.0.9231...........0.

But, as I keep pointing out, you are effectively only able to utilise ~60% of the disk capacity. ZFS suffers performance penalties when it fills above 80%. Therefore, if you utilise ZFS, you end up with slightly more than only half the capacity of the disks. Are you willing to pay for a system where your filesystem capacity is only slightly half of the disks you've purchased?

In a mirrored system you only get 50% so ~60% is an improvement.

Actually, that is incorrect. Even with a mirrored system, utilising non-ZFS filesystems you actually should only utilise 80% of your filesystem to allow for growth. While it is a fallacy to assume that you're only using 50% of your disk space in a mirrored system, in reality you are utilising all your disks.

Semantics. If you use two 1 Tb drives in a mirrored systems you only get 1 Tb of space. You bought 2 Tb you get 1 Tb of storage = 50%. (If that.)

 

[sferrin]

Excuse me? You really seem to have problems tolerating alternative viewpoints. I have acknowledged it and pointed out the fallacy in assuming that. The mirrored disks are in use, they are not, not being used as you and sublight are attempting to imply. :

And this is why most people have stopped listening to you.

 

[Antonio]

Topic ging nowhere. Closed.