I chose to transfer about 50GB of important data that I don't use often to an S3 Glacier Deep Archive instead of paying for extra Google Drive space. The S3 cost ends up being less than $0.05 a month, which seems incredibly affordable. But I'm wondering if I'm overlooking any crucial aspects or risks by making this switch. What should I consider?
5 Answers
You might notice that consumer apps tend to markup costs for all the fancy features they offer. S3 is more about raw storage without the bells and whistles, so if you're good with that, you might not be losing out on anything significant. Personally, I have both S3 for heavy files and Google Drive for convenience.
When it comes to switching to S3 Glacier, keep in mind that while the storage is cheap, retrieving your data can take time and may cost you. If you're okay with slow retrieval and low costs, then it sounds like a good option for you!
I moved several terabytes of photos and videos to S3 Intelligent Tiering too! I went from paying hundreds a year for Google Photos to under $5 a month with S3. Just keep in mind that if you need quick access, the costs might add up. Otherwise, for archiving, it's a solid choice.
Just a heads up, retrieving data from S3 Glacier can be a hassle. I tried that for backups and ended up switching back to an on-prem solution after some late nights retrieving files. Make sure you're okay with the potential wait times before deciding!
Google Drive has a lot of user-friendly features that S3 lacks. If you're already used to the seamless experience of Google Drive, the switch might feel like you're trading ease of use for cost savings. But if features aren't a big deal for you, then you should be fine with S3.
Interesting point! I use a ton of Google Drive just for the integrations and ease of use, especially with photos. But I see how S3 might fit better for less frequently accessed files.
Yeah, for my current needs, the retrieval time isn't a concern at all. I'm just astonished by how cheap it is!