![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Ave, die lunae!
Feb. 14th, 2011 06:14 pmOr something along those lines.
Nothing much to see, here, other than the fact it's Valentine's Day.
Feht's project continues apace, and I am black and blue from all of the research into expressions that, more often than not, show up only in search result hits that quote the material I'm working on (a memoir). That kind of thing makes things hard.
In other news, I am just over 98% complete with my initial Backblaze backup of my work files. The process has taken a little over a week, and with any luck, will finish this evening some time. I had previously tried the Carbonite service, but their basic package categorically does not include backups of data on USB drives, and while neither Carbonite nor Backblaze will back up the SD card that sits permanently in a slot in my Acer, at least I can back up the data by copying it from the SD card to a USB drive first. The other major advantage I found with Backblaze is a more rational approach in automatically figuring out what files to back up.
My recent headlong rush into the cloud includes a dalliance with mSpot, where I have limited myself to the 2 GB they offer for free. Their next increment of service, offering 40-GB of storage for $3.99 per month, offers too much storage and too expensive for my pocket. If there was an intermediate step, prorated for, say, 6 GB, I would be happy to fork over around $1 per month for the service they offer (storage and streaming).
Having said that, it is clear that I apparently wouldn't mind paying $2 per gig per year for a small amount of storage, but balk at paying $1.20 per gig per year for 40 GB. Most of it has to do with not really needing 40 GB to store music (not to mention how long it takes to upload such a volume of data), which means the other factor, the overall cost ($12 vs $48), becomes the deciding factor.
Taking the discussion one step further, it occurs to me that $2 per gig per year is what Dropbox currently charges for its standard increments of 50 GB and 100 GB, without streaming, but with other features (such as being able to share folders with others or publicly and to access data from a number of platforms). Here again, although I'd be willing to pay a $2/gig/yr rate for a small amount of storage, I'm not willing to do so for 50 GB or 100 GB.
There would appear to be a pattern emerging in the analysis. How useful it might be is anyone's guess.
;^)
Cheers...
Nothing much to see, here, other than the fact it's Valentine's Day.
Feht's project continues apace, and I am black and blue from all of the research into expressions that, more often than not, show up only in search result hits that quote the material I'm working on (a memoir). That kind of thing makes things hard.
In other news, I am just over 98% complete with my initial Backblaze backup of my work files. The process has taken a little over a week, and with any luck, will finish this evening some time. I had previously tried the Carbonite service, but their basic package categorically does not include backups of data on USB drives, and while neither Carbonite nor Backblaze will back up the SD card that sits permanently in a slot in my Acer, at least I can back up the data by copying it from the SD card to a USB drive first. The other major advantage I found with Backblaze is a more rational approach in automatically figuring out what files to back up.
My recent headlong rush into the cloud includes a dalliance with mSpot, where I have limited myself to the 2 GB they offer for free. Their next increment of service, offering 40-GB of storage for $3.99 per month, offers too much storage and too expensive for my pocket. If there was an intermediate step, prorated for, say, 6 GB, I would be happy to fork over around $1 per month for the service they offer (storage and streaming).
Having said that, it is clear that I apparently wouldn't mind paying $2 per gig per year for a small amount of storage, but balk at paying $1.20 per gig per year for 40 GB. Most of it has to do with not really needing 40 GB to store music (not to mention how long it takes to upload such a volume of data), which means the other factor, the overall cost ($12 vs $48), becomes the deciding factor.
Taking the discussion one step further, it occurs to me that $2 per gig per year is what Dropbox currently charges for its standard increments of 50 GB and 100 GB, without streaming, but with other features (such as being able to share folders with others or publicly and to access data from a number of platforms). Here again, although I'd be willing to pay a $2/gig/yr rate for a small amount of storage, I'm not willing to do so for 50 GB or 100 GB.
There would appear to be a pattern emerging in the analysis. How useful it might be is anyone's guess.
;^)
Cheers...
