Google Nearline Delivers Some Serious Competition To Amazon Glacier

SpzToid writes Google is offering a new kind of data storage service – and revealing its cloud computing strategy against Amazon Web Services and Microsoft Azure. The company said on Wednesday that it would offer a service called Nearline, for non-essential data. Like an AWS product called Glacier, this storage costs just a penny a month per gigabyte. Microsoft's cheapest listed online storage is about 2.4 cents a gigabyte. While Glacier storage has a retrieval time of several hours, Google said Nearline data will be available in about three seconds. From the announcement: "Today, we're excited to introduce Google Cloud Storage Nearline, a simple, low-cost, fast-response storage service with quick data backup, retrieval and access. Many of you operate a tiered data storage and archival process, in which data moves from expensive online storage to offline cold storage. We know the value of having access to all of your data on demand, so Nearline enables you to easily backup and store limitless amounts of data at a very low cost and access it at any time in a matter of seconds."

Comments

Re:Seems expensive

[DaHat]

but doing this yourself seems to be a lot cheaper.

Oh? Have you factored in the cost of ensuring that you always have an offsite and fully up to date copy, not to mention secondary and tertiary copies for transit time in case your primary datacenter/server happens to kick the bucket/get stolen/evaporate?

It's easy to compare the cost of an offered service to what you can pick up seeming similar equipment for from Amazon or Newegg... the realities though are far more complex.

and cannot put anything confidential there (unless you are not bothered by various TLAs searching through it).

There are ways to manage even that, see this brief bit of Wikipedia for a start.

I don't know if there are any other commercial or enterprise products out there that do it, but I know this one stores all of it's data in the cloud (with a local cache) but does all of the encryption on site. Only if you choose does the encryption key leave your site and then only in a way you choose making it rather problematic for a TLA or Microsoft to get to your data.

It is an interesting world when you are dealing with data you cannot legally delete for a period of time and simply want to rid yourself of the burden of having to store it locally. Suing Google or Amazon because their cold storage failed is a far better option than having your IT guy tell you that the HD they stored the crucial data to doesn't spin up anymore... and that the backup disk ended up in the secretary desktop.

Re: TFS just has marketing

[Anonymous Coward]

This service uses Google normal hard drive architecture, but makes use of the fact that most of their drives have free capacity in terms of Gigabytes, but are running out of IO bandwidth (ie. There are so many users trying to read and write the data that if they filled the drives to capacity, not everyone would get good read and write performance).

This product is basically filling the drive to capacity, but giving you the lowest priority for reads and writes. Hence why it takes 3 seconds to read data whereas a normal hard drive typically takes 20 milliseconds.

Re:I don't get the pricing?

[SpzToid]

Interesting point, so I read up a bit. This only applies to Office365 customers. What about Linux, (etc.) users that can't fully utilize Office365? This really seems almost like a consumer option, and there are certainly business use-cases where this just ain't gonna fly. There's a 20,000 file limit, *period*, and the maximum file size is 10Gb, which is limiting for some, (especially those folks who roll their own encryption and compression).

For those reasons, Microsoft Office365/OneDrive doesn't seem like a serious competitor to Google Nearline, Amazon Glacier, or Microsoft Azure services.

http://www.techrepublic.com/ar...

Re:Oh yeah, this is just what I want

[Skater]

Me either. I have ~250 gigabytes of pictures to back up, and I wanted to do it offsite (they're our family memories). Before Glacier came along, I was looking at building NAS machines for my brother and I that we would host each other's backup data. It would've worked, but what a PITA, and a lot of up-front expense. Glacier is easy, and cheap - my AWS bill last month was $2.50. For that kind of money, it's hard to justify the time and expense of rolling my own remote NAS solution. (I know over the long run I might be able to build the remote NAS solution for less money, but figure in electricity costs and potential drive replacements, and I'm not sure that solution would be that much cheaper. It would all depend on how long the drives last.)