LaCie CloudBox Stores Data Locally & in Cloud

[exfileme]

Here's a 100 GB hybrid device that will store your files both locally and in the cloud... for a fee, naturally.

LaCie CloudBox Stores Data Locally & in Cloud : Read more

 

[rohitbaran]

It is expensive, $100 a year for 100 GB. Well, cloud services will get cheaper with time hopefully. Nice concept though!

 

[Gamer-girl]

mozy already does this, you can use any external hard or usb stick.

 

[someguynamedmatt]

...or, I could just have my data happily humming beside me in a RAID 10 array, and not give these people any of my money whatsoever. That sounds like a better plan to me. I've got bigger things to worry about if my system spontaneously combusts.

 

[alidan]

[citation][nom]rohitbaran[/nom]It is expensive, $100 a year for 100 GB. Well, cloud services will get cheaper with time hopefully. Nice concept though![/citation]

well its an offsite backup, and you have to imagine that there are at least 3 mirrors of the data on their servers, so its realistically 300gb of storage and 200gb of that is redundancy.

 

[back_by_demand]

I guess the 8Tb of storage I have in a big fat dedicated NAS would take between 6.5 and 13 years.

Cloud storage may be a good idea in principle but face it, as soon as someone gets over 1Tb of data the time to upload it makes using the Cloud an unfeasible option until internet speeds go up by a factor of at least 100.

 

[Guest]

@someguynamedmatt
RAIDs do not protect data in case of a fire or if data corruption (such as a virus) which only offsite storage does

 

[loutech4free]

"... and you have to imagine that there are at least 3 mirrors of the data on their servers, so its realistically 300gb of storage and 200gb of that is redundancy."
If they do it correctly and not like some LMFAO rainforest Ossi cloud company
http://www.watoday.com.au/technology/security/4800-aussie-sites-evaporate-after-hack-20110621-1gd1h.html

 

[kriminal]

WOW at that link!

 

[Guest]

For $100/year you can buy approx 3 100 GB hard drives, make copies of your data, and store them at your friend's house.

I realize that this is a poor comparison, as what you are paying for is obviously not storage space, but the convenience of having a completely automated off-site backup solution. This is obviously good for data that is being worked on / updated very often, but probably a poor choice for static types of content such as collections of photos or music.

 

[huron]

[citation][nom]back_by_demand[/nom]I guess the 8Tb of storage I have in a big fat dedicated NAS would take between 6.5 and 13 years.Cloud storage may be a good idea in principle but face it, as soon as someone gets over 1Tb of data the time to upload it makes using the Cloud an unfeasible option until internet speeds go up by a factor of at least 100.[/citation]

I'm not arguing for against the cloud, but really it's not the cloud that is the problem, but the network connection to get there. Here's hoping that bandwidth will increase for a lower price at some point soon, or cloud adoption will be difficult to sell to the masses.

The $100 for 100GB seems a bit high myself. Again, hopefully the cost will come down over time.

 

[ltbob]

Wow say good bye to my bandwidth if I get this

 

[Da_Man]

wow imagine if i use that service, my upload speed is only a mere 128kbps (16KB/sec) lmao

 

[eddieroolz]

This is obviously predicated on having a good upstream bandwidth, but unfortunately users outside East Asia don't.

 

[fir_ser]

This is a new type pf hybrid storage.

 

[fir_ser]

The price tag of $200 is expensive.