SkyDrive for backup?

[jim hughes]

Is anyone using Skydrive for serious (like 50 gb) backup? I currently use Amazon S3, and while it works fine, there are drawbacks.

I like the way SkyDrive integrates into the OS. But currently, anything you want to sync with the clould has to be in the SkyDrive folder. I also wonder about syncronization, automatic deletion from SkyDrive if I delete the local file, and other fine points of backup.

Who's using it for large amounts of data, not just sharing Office documents and a few snapshots?

 

[Growltiger]

No, not me! In my opinion, it is completely crazy to trust the cloud for your backups. Reasons:

1. Calculate how long it would take to restore 50GB from the cloud following a total loss of data. If your internet connection has a download data transfer rate of 2Mb/s it will take 69 hours to get your 50GB of data back. In contrast a backup hard disk will restore that in minutes.

2. What are the backup procedures which Amazon or Microsoft operate? Do they make regular off-site backups? Is your data at multiple locations? How often is it backed up at all? Does it just rely on RAID arrays? The remarkable thing is that none of the cloud companies appear to say what their backup methods or standards are - try looking on their websites. So even if you believed their promises - they are not even promising anything.

3. With smaller operators I would worry about the businesses shutting down. Doesn't apply here.

 

[ddietiker]

No, not me! In my opinion, it is completely crazy to trust the cloud for your backups. Reasons:


3. With smaller operators I would worry about the businesses shutting down. Doesn't apply here.

Even larger companies can have a change of policy. Once they have your data they can hold you hostage because changing companies will be a major headache that most wont want to do. (And believe me, they discuss this in meetings.)

 

[jim hughes]

I don't think there's any realistic possibility of Amazon or Microsoft totally losing your data. They use redundant servers at multiple geographic locations. There might be an occasional outage such that you couldn't access it; but Amazon has been at this for a few years and I haven't heard of them actually losing anything yet.

On the other hand, any of us could have our house destroyed by fire, and if you didn't have offsite backup, well... you're toast.

Yes, they could change their terms of service. But Amazon has been steadily reducing prices for storage, not raising them.

 

[MikeG76]

The other thing to consider is just where exactly your data is going when 'in the cloud' at Amazon, Google, Microsoft, etc. Does it make its way to another country where the laws may not be the same concerning content stored on servers?

I'm not a fan of cloud storage at all really. Yes, its cheap, but that's about the only thing going for it. There are other solutions to get your data offsite where you are in control.

 

[jim hughes]

I'm sure Amazon and Microsoft wouldn't put servers in countries with unstable or potentially hostile governments. Yes, I guess there's an element of faith to this, but hey this is Microsoft, storing Office documents - their customers are Fortune 500 - they're not going to leave it sitting on servers in Pakistan.

 

[Butlerkid]

No thanks! But it is all personal preference. Nice to have choices...

I'll take personal responsibility for my data...and my backups. I don't want to pay others for what I can do....or to keep safe what is important to me.

 

[ddietiker]

I'm sure Amazon and Microsoft wouldn't put servers in countries with unstable or potentially hostile governments. Yes, I guess there's an element of faith to this, but hey this is Microsoft, storing Office documents - their customers are Fortune 500 - they're not going to leave it sitting on servers in Pakistan.

Most fortune 500 keep their own offsite backups as well as disaster recovery sites. A cloud in all likelihood would never pass an audit.

 

[MikeG76]

Most fortune 500 keep their own offsite backups as well as disaster recovery sites. A cloud in all likelihood would never pass an audit.

Our company doesn't allow cloud storage on external servers and we're not even a Fortune 500 company. We were listed a few years ago though, but we still abide by SOX guidelines.

 

[Silenus]

No, not me! In my opinion, it is completely crazy to trust the cloud for your backups. Reasons:...

I would rephrase this as "it is completely crazy to trust the cloud for your ONLY backup."

Cloud backup has it place, as your secondary or tertiary backup. And if you have no other offsite backup than it is certainly better than NOT having something offsite. However...your points are valid. Although any backup is better than no backup, it certainly is not recommenced to have cloud as your only backup.

 

[jim hughes]

I think all this mistrust of "the cloud" is out of proportion. At the colossal server farms run by companies like Amazon and Microsoft, your data is automatically stored redundantly and at more than one facility. They have to do this, because they couldn't afford the bad publicity they'd get if some customers really lost the whole enchilada due to a simple hardware failure, or a fire at a facility. And has anyone heard of a serious data loss by one of these companies? I certainly have not. Temporarily inaccessible, yes, but never totally lost.

 

[Butlerkid]

My decision is not so much based on mistrust....as it is based on perceived value.

Why pay someone else when I can do it myself! No Clouds...whether offered by Adobe or others! I have other way to spend my money....like NAS! :tongue:

 

[little big man]

Our company doesn't allow cloud storage on external servers and we're not even a Fortune 500 company. We were listed a few years ago though, but we still abide by SOX guidelines.

That's where PCI and DISA certified cloud storage/services come into play - usually it's only the gov't and fortune 500 that can afford that tier of service.

Sean

 

[ddietiker]

I think all this mistrust of "the cloud" is out of proportion. At the colossal server farms run by companies like Amazon and Microsoft, your data is automatically stored redundantly and at more than one facility. They have to do this, because they couldn't afford the bad publicity they'd get if some customers really lost the whole enchilada due to a simple hardware failure, or a fire at a facility. And has anyone heard of a serious data loss by one of these companies? I certainly have not. Temporarily inaccessible, yes, but never totally lost.

That's because they don't rely on cloud backup services :wink:

 

[ddietiker]

That's where PCI and DISA certified cloud storage/services come into play - usually it's only the gov't and fortune 500 that can afford that tier of service.

Sean

That will pass an audit.

 

[Growltiger]

I think all this mistrust of "the cloud" is out of proportion. At the colossal server farms run by companies like Amazon and Microsoft, your data is automatically stored redundantly and at more than one facility. They have to do this, because they couldn't afford the bad publicity they'd get if some customers really lost the whole enchilada due to a simple hardware failure, or a fire at a facility. And has anyone heard of a serious data loss by one of these companies? I certainly have not. Temporarily inaccessible, yes, but never totally lost.

Where do Microsoft promise what you claim they provide?
Is that part of your contract with Microsoft when you use SkyDrive?
What compensation is provided if your data is lost?

I can't understand a business relationship based on the idea that the only reason you will get a good service is because the other party will get bad publicity if they fail. If they lost just your data, I don't think you would get either publicity or compensation.

A contractual guarantee along the lines of "$1m compensation if we lose any of your data" would be a good start.

 

[Rich Gibson]

Another one in the "No thank you" column to the cloud.

My concern is not so much for the integrity of the cloud storage vendors; rather it is for unintended events which haven't been anticipated from technical, financial and physical disasters to the rogue employee who has a personal agenda and causes havoc. However it isn't far fetched to see a situation where the cloud service companies hold your data hostage by steadily raising storage fees or restricting data throughput into tiered flow rates...faster retrieval for increased charges.

Right now I can buy a 3TB 7200RPM hard drive for $110. I want control and gladly accept responsibility for it.

 

[OutOfBreath]

I use a combination of RAID, external hard drive (NAS) and cloud backup (CrashPlan).

If I have a single drive failure in my PC then the mirrored RAID drive should pick up the slack until I can replace the failed drive.

If something destroys the RAID array or both drives go down then I should be able to get the stuff off my NAS.

If somebody breaks into my house or the house burns down or similar and my PC and NAS are not accessible then all of my stuff can be retrieved from CrashPlan. Yes, it will take quite a while... but it's a last resort and better than loosing my important data!

 

[kopacko]

Using a local hard drive for local backups is good.

You still need a online backup service. Amazon is not truly a cloud, so don't be fooled in thinking that with AWS. I have both Carbonite and Back Blaze.

My suggestion for photography online backups would be Zenfolio or Flickr. I use both. You can backup all you want, all day long on a local drive and then when you are out to eat and lightning strikes and your house burns down or someone breaks and stills all your stuff...what is going to get you? The bonus of Zenfolio and Flickr is, I have access to them on my tablet or phone at any time.

I take my local backup to my local bank once a month and swap out the drives in my safe deposit box. I have nearly 800 gigs of photos dating back to the early 80s as well as scans of old family slides going back to the 60-70s.

PCI is not expensive to attain (for the person who stated it was). It is just a PITA!

 

[Frits]

My 3-pronged backup scheme:
- I back up my Mac (with Time Machine) into an external drive next to my Mac.
- Besides that I also run Time Machine into a Time Capsule, which is in an entirely different part of the house.
- Lastly, I run a weekly backup into an external drive, which is kept at an off site location.

Works for me.