<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.01 Transitional//EN">
<html>
<head>
<meta content="text/html; charset=ISO-8859-1"
http-equiv="Content-Type">
</head>
<body bgcolor="#ffffff" text="#000000">
On 09/03/2012 12:23 PM, Steve Killen wrote:
<blockquote
cite="mid:CAF2YjC41vundMHPXZm+CQad66=jfopK8+vVMi306qYkAssW4UA@mail.gmail.com"
type="cite">So we currently do backups with <a moz-do-not-send="true"
href="http://rsync.net">rsync.net</a> for ~$60/mo. I just ran across
Amazon Glacier:<br>
<br>
<a moz-do-not-send="true" href="http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/">http://aws.amazon.com/glacier/</a><br>
<br>
It's $0.01/GB a month.<br>
<br>
I'm just spitballing to get the conversation started, but off the cuff
it seems worth looking into to reduce our backup costs--how much data
are we maintaining with rsync?<br>
</blockquote>
<br>
I don't even know if a working, reasonable back-up regime is in place
at this point. It wouldn't surprise me if that slipped by the wayside
during various upgrades.<br>
<br>
A regular process for testing the integrity of back-up data would be
great; I don't think we ever had one.<br>
</body>
</html>