It always seems like I'm trying to find a better way to back up my photos; maybe it's because I used to be a disaster recovery coordinator in a previous life. Seriously :)
Anyway, has anyone used Amazon's S3 simple storage solution to keep a backup of their photos offsite? It seems fairly inexpensive. For my 200GB of photos accumulated over two years, it would cost about $30/month, assuming I don't upload and download much during the month. I mainly just want to upload and store new files of photographs after a shoot once I've put the bulk of the files into storage the first time around.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has used this or contemplated using this; what are the pros and cons? The process itself interests me - has anyone done this? Is it easy to replace your files with updated ones? Easy to add more photos without getting confused?
Posted by Matt Dallos on October 2, 2007 at 9:00 PM
I have not heard of this but it sounds like a pretty cool idea. It would really not cost too much, especially if I was to upload only a set of files of my best images as backups to my backups. I guess it would be wise to think of it as another insurance policy?
Discussion
3 repliesAnyway, has anyone used Amazon's S3 simple storage solution to keep a backup of their photos offsite? It seems fairly inexpensive. For my 200GB of photos accumulated over two years, it would cost about $30/month, assuming I don't upload and download much during the month. I mainly just want to upload and store new files of photographs after a shoot once I've put the bulk of the files into storage the first time around.
I'd love to hear from anyone who has used this or contemplated using this; what are the pros and cons? The process itself interests me - has anyone done this? Is it easy to replace your files with updated ones? Easy to add more photos without getting confused?
To find out more about this, I found this website:
http://www.amazon.com/S3-AWS-home-page-Money/b?ie=UTF8&node=16427261
Thanks,
Nancy
Nancy
Wim.