Re: AWS or Microsoft storage

Well yes. I've been working for a backup vendor (Commvault) for 7 years and have used both S3 and Glacier as a backup target. The speed is determined by the speed of your WAN.  S3 is more expensive but MUCH faster and can do storage snapshots. There are several tiers of S3 storage, the speed is what you agree on with AWS, including SSD devices, if that's what you want. It's reliable and very easy to setup using most of backup suites. I have set it up personally numerous times on Commvault and I've seen a demo for Rubrik which also looks very easy to set up.

Glacier, on the other hand is dirt cheap, competing with LTO-7 in $$$ per TB. It is deduplicated using 2-pass algorithm,which means that it squeezes your data to the least possible amount of storage, usual reduction rate is around 95%. However, that comes with some drawbacks. An obvious drawback of a 2-pass deduplication is speed. Getting your data back is not very fast, around 2.5 times slower than the normal S3 (no SSD). The reason is that you also have to do 2 passes to read the data. True, AWS is charging for reading the data and not for writing to it. But reading a big backup will cost you and will not be fast. Last time I checked, Glacier was not reachable outside of the cloud, you needed an AWS VM to access it. Glacier is an excellent backup option if your machines are all AWS virtual machines,  but you would need something like Commvault or Rubrik to use it on the premises. I would recommend Commvault because I know it well and I know it's good software.

PS:

I no longer work for Commvault.

On 12/3/19 9:14 PM, Ram Raman wrote:

>

-- 
Mladen Gogala
Database Consultant
Tel: (347) 321-1217

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