Amazon Offers Unlimited Cloud Storage For $59.99 Per Year

I've been using Amazon Glacier with Synology... Does anyone know how Amazon Cloud drive can be integrated with Synology (as a package)?

I've been using Amazon Glacier with Synology... Does anyone know how Amazon Cloud drive can be integrated with Synology (as a package)?

That was one of the first things I look at after hearing about Clod Drive unlimited. Unfortunately there isn't a way to make it work with Synology yet.

This offer doesn't appear to be available in Canada via Amazon.ca. Trying to change from the free 5gb tier presents other paid tiers to choose from but this "Unlimited Everything" option doesn't exist. Thought maybe I could get around it via logging into my separate Amazon.com ID but accessing Cloud Drive seems to take me to the Canadian version by default. Pity that.....I too would have appreciated the off-site backup of my digital music files (about 6 terabytes worth). Hopefully, this can be made available to us up here in Canada at some point in the future.

You can view the page at Computer Audiophile - Amazon Offers Unlimited Cloud Storage For $59.99 Per Year

This sounds very cool! I missed where you switched to a Windows based NAS though - did you write that up? If so, can you point it out to me please? That might be worth looking into.

I was thinking of adding one of those inexpensive WD EXT4 NAS units into the house as a test. They are very cheap, running from $670 for an 8TB unit to just over $1300 for a 24TB unit.

I have serious doubts about any of these little units having enough I/O or processing ability to handle the A/V load at the house, but a nice Windows based SAN might be a better option. Has to work for Linux and MacOS too though.

-Paul

This sounds very cool! I missed where you switched to a Windows based NAS though - did you write that up? If so, can you point it out to me please? That might be worth looking into.

 

I was thinking of adding one of those inexpensive WD EXT4 NAS units into the house as a test. They are very cheap, running from $670 for an 8TB unit to just over $1300 for a 24TB unit.

 

I have serious doubts about any of these little units having enough I/O or processing ability to handle the A/V load at the house, but a nice Windows based SAN might be a better option. Has to work for Linux and MacOS too though.

 

-Paul

Hi Paul - I switched to Windows based NAS with a CAPS Cortes server. I also have a Thecus NAS coming in for review that runs Windows.

So far I've run into several issues uploading files using the Windows based Cloud Drive uploading app. I switched to the Mac app and it's working perfect on every file.

Hi Paul - I switched to Windows based NAS with a CAPS Cortes server. I also have a Thecus NAS coming in for review that runs Windows.

Ah- and you RIP with dbPowerAmp so you don't get the extra long filename/path combinations. I guess it might be time to give up XLD in favor of dbPowerAmp. (*sigh*)

And look into a Cortes server.

-Paul

How is this service a better alternative than Glacier? I have a Synology NAS and have been tempted to try Glacier.

How is this service a better alternative than Glacier? I have a Synology NAS and have been tempted to try Glacier.

Based on this from Amazon re:Glacier, it looks like Cloud Drive is a much faster way of accessing your data and Cloud Drive data is available on many platforms. Plus, Cloud Drive has a fixed cost.

"Amazon Glacier is a secure, durable, and extremely low-cost storage service for data archiving and online backup. Customers can reliably store large or small amounts of data for as little as $0.01 per gigabyte per month, a significant savings compared to on-premises solutions. To keep costs low, Amazon Glacier is optimized for infrequently accessed data where a retrieval time of several hours is suitable."

Based on this from Amazon re:Glacier, it looks like Cloud Drive is a much faster way of accessing your data and Cloud Drive data is available on many platforms. Plus, Cloud Drive has a fixed cost.

 

"Amazon Glacier is a secure, durable, and extremely low-cost storage service for data archiving and online backup. Customers can reliably store large or small amounts of data for as little as $0.01 per gigabyte per month, a significant savings compared to on-premises solutions. To keep costs low, Amazon Glacier is optimized for infrequently accessed data where a retrieval time of several hours is suitable."

Yeah, it also looks like Glacier is more expensive for large amounts of data. If my math is right 500 gigabytes would cost $5.00/month. That is a lot smaller than unlimited. Somehow I have a feeling "unlimited" is gonna go away.

Let us know how long it takes to upload how much data. I'm also interested in knowing how well it behaves recognizing changes in data.

Indeed, upload speed is the crucial factor. I'd love to have a backup of my music library in the cloud, but I'm afraid uploading 3.5TB of data will take months.

The cost wasn't the main thing stopping me making online backups of my music library. The main problem for many remains upload speed.

Apologies if this question is not relevant, but will this service stream your .FLAC files back in lossless quality, or is this simply a storage locker?

I've got my entire collection up on Google music, but, the files only stream back at 320kbps.

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the fundamental concept here.

Apologies if this question is not relevant, but will this service stream your .FLAC files back in lossless quality, or is this simply a storage locker?

 

I've got my entire collection up on Google music, but, the files only stream back at 320kbps.

 

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the fundamental concept here.

It's for offsite backup, not streaming.

Love it.

I ask why ? why not just back up your data yourself at home. External storage is so cheap and you control it all. Amazon's Twitch was just hacked and I really don't like this part of the "terms of service for Amazon cloud storage 3.3 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201376540

3.3 Our Use of Your Files to Provide the Service. We may use, access, and retain Your Files in order to provide the Service to you and enforce the terms of the Agreement, and you give us all permissions we need to do so. These permissions include, for example, the rights to copy Your Files for backup purposes, modify Your Files to enable access in different formats, use information about Your Files to organize them on your behalf, and access Your Files to provide technical support. Amazon respects your privacy and Your Files are subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice located at http://www.amazon.com/privacy.

I ask why ? why not just back up your data yourself at home. External storage is so cheap and you control it all. Amazon's Twitch was just hacked and I really don't like this part of the "terms of service for Amazon cloud storage 3.3 http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/customer/display.html?nodeId=201376540

 

 

3.3 Our Use of Your Files to Provide the Service. We may use, access, and retain Your Files in order to provide the Service to you and enforce the terms of the Agreement, and you give us all permissions we need to do so. These permissions include, for example, the rights to copy Your Files for backup purposes, modify Your Files to enable access in different formats, use information about Your Files to organize them on your behalf, and access Your Files to provide technical support. Amazon respects your privacy and Your Files are subject to the Amazon.com Privacy Notice located at www.amazon.com/privacy.

Hi Mav - Certainly a reasonable question. I personally don't want to control it. one I upload the music I can forget about it. If this was on my own hard drives I have to worry about a host of things such as accidentally deleting it, bad drives, losing it, theft, fire, etc...

To me the ToS # 3.3 aren't a bother. It's the cost of doing this kind of business. I pay $59.99, they can have a liberal ToS policy.

@mav52, as I read those terms, they're just talking about routine server-side stuff. But they're your files, so your choice.

The reason I like cloud storage is in case of something like a fire or lightning strike that might take out both of my external drives (though in the case of the lightning strike at least I'd probably still have my SD card backups).

Just tested amazon cloud. Apparently file folders cannot be directly uploaded via firefox browser - just documents ( apparently you need

chrome browser) - so for me it's worthless.

if someone has a "workaround" would be happy to hear

Just tested amazon cloud. Apparently file folders cannot be directly uploaded via firefox browser - just documents ( apparently you need

chrome browser) - so for me it's worthless.

if someone has a "workaround" would be happy to hear

You can't use Chrome for uploading? Or, the dedicated desktop apps?

Yeah, it also looks like Glacier is more expensive for large amounts of data. If my math is right 500 gigabytes would cost $5.00/month. That is a lot smaller than unlimited. Somehow I have a feeling "unlimited" is gonna go away.

 

Let us know how long it takes to upload how much data. I'm also interested in knowing how well it behaves recognizing changes in data.

I actually don't think unlimited will go away. My guess is either or both of the following are true: (1) They're making plenty even considering the relatively few who will store more than 500GB; and (2) This will help draw people into the Amazon "ecosystem" (note the tie-in between unlimited photo storage and Amazon Prime).

Upload time: Aye, there's the rub. I started mine last night (my ISP provides nominal 2MB per second upload time, though actual, especially over Wi-Fi, is less); as of this morning a few GB out of ~700 had loaded. I'm figuring that's in the ballpark of a hundred days or so.... What I realize now is that it's a mistake to set everything to upload (there's no "pause" for Amazon's upload app, just "cancel"). I should be doing this with a few recordings per day instead. Another thing: When I reorganized the files on my main external drive and made sure they all had lovely metadata, I didn't bother to do the same with the backup external drive in the office upstairs. What I may do is zap everything on the upstairs drive, copy everything over from downstairs (could take a couple of days, I suppose - why I didn't bother the first time) and then try backing up to Amazon from the wired connection upstairs to see if I get better upload speed.

Am trying it. The upload for me is excruciatingly slow so far, and it spontaneously stopped uploading at one point. Hoping it will speed up, otherwise it is a no go.

@mav52, as I read those terms, they're just talking about routine server-side stuff. But they're your files, so your choice.

 

The reason I like cloud storage is in case of something like a fire or lightning strike that might take out both of my external drives (though in the case of the lightning strike at least I'd probably still have my SD card backups).

Jud , we must have read something different in the terms of service: ""3.3 Our Use of Your Files to Provide the Service. We may use, access, and retain Your Files in order to provide the Service to you and enforce the terms of the Agreement, and you give us all permissions we need to do so. These permissions include, for example, the rights to copy Your Files for backup purposes, modify Your Files to enable access in different formats, use information about Your Files to organize them on your behalf, and access Your Files to provide technical support. "" its using your music files or any files if they wish.

Chris, I keep two off-line backups that are not residing in my home, a total computer including system, all files off-site in a secure location, (a bank along with other important items). I might give Amazon a try, it appears they are using the Symantec web backup Cloud Storage Backup | Symantec

@mav52, as I read those terms, they're just talking about routine server-side stuff. But they're your files, so your choice.

 

The reason I like cloud storage is in case of something like a fire or lightning strike that might take out both of my external drives (though in the case of the lightning strike at least I'd probably still have my SD card backups).

Jud are you reading the same thing as me http://www.amazon.com/gp/help/custom...deId=201376540

3.3 Our Use of Your Files to Provide the Service. We may use, access, and retain Your Files in order to provide the Service to you and enforce the terms of the Agreement, and you give us all permissions we need to do so. These permissions include, for example, the rights to copy Your Files for backup purposes, modify Your Files to enable access in different formats, use information about Your Files to organize them on your behalf, and access Your Files to provide technical support.

Hi Mav - Certainly a reasonable question. I personally don't want to control it. one I upload the music I can forget about it. If this was on my own hard drives I have to worry about a host of things such as accidentally deleting it, bad drives, losing it, theft, fire, etc...

 

To me the ToS # 3.3 aren't a bother. It's the cost of doing this kind of business. I pay $59.99, they can have a liberal ToS policy.

I don't know, I got stung by Carbonite after 4 years, fine print in which they say unlimited but after 200gb it takes forever to upload and god help ya if you had to do a recovery. Maybe I'm gun shy of "cloud" storage by a third party, I might try amazon just to see.

We currently keep two complete PC copies including external hard drives at our bank along with other important items for $33.00 a year.

Carry on,