Is Google Archive Storage really that cheap?

[Filingo]

I was looking to create a cloud backup in addition to a physical one for the more important files/photos I have

At first I thought I'd put it in AWS S3 Glacier, but I wanted to see if Google has some equivalent and found "Google Archive Storage", and this is the cost per 1TB per month:

 

 

 

I also read that, it has a big advantage over AWS because the data retrieval is instant, unlike AWS where you have to wait to get the archives.

Also this is the price per 1TB per month on AWS S3 Glacier:

 

 

 

Then why would I use Drive if I have this option?

Can I upload my files as I do with AWS? Just upload them to S3 bucket and archive them on a daily basis (Or whatever frequency you prefer)?

 

What a I missing?

 

[merco]

It says data transfer cost 0, maybe google data transfer isn't free? The first screenshot seems to be an estimate, so I guess it could be more expensive depending on how you use it, that's what I would look into if I were you.

[A51UK]

Yes and no, that is the cost, but it cost less as it is very slow to read from, (could be tapes drives) and made for someone who only access file once a year or longer (e.g. backups). Note that data transfer going in to google cloud is free but outgoing you would have to pay, also Operations (insert,get...)  cost is on top. This could be really cheap if you want to keep data that not going be use for years. There could be other cost like backup (more than one copy in different area of the world). It would be way cheaper than front line data store like  AWS S3 Glacier:or Google cloud Standard Storage. 

[Filingo]

Yes it's an estimate and has transfer fees, but AWS also has transfer fees. but these fees are also cheap, for example 0.23$ if I saw correctly. And i assume it's for an object with a lot of files, not one only? I mean you don't retrieve a single image right? So it's not that bad for images that you access say even a few times a year?

[A51UK]

Just now, Filingo said:

Yes it's an estimate and has transfer fees, but AWS also has transfer fees. but these fees are also cheap, for example 0.23$ if I saw correctly. And i assume it's for an object with a lot of files, not one only/ I mean you don't retrieve a single image right? So it's not that bad for images that you access say even a few times a year?

It  transfers fees out only (not data going in) and per MB not files or objects (e.g. $0.23 per MB but there some free amounts per month)., both also have  Operations instructions  cost as well, but there are very small. Also look up Azure as well. 

[Eigenvektor]

19 minutes ago, Filingo said:

What a I missing?

Google says "Estimate". To me this implies there could be additional costs on top, which Google can't exactly tell you, because it depends on how often you upload/download data. So I'd take a more careful look at what exactly it is you get for those $1.23 per month compared to Amazon's $4.10

 

The other thing about backups is their reliability. What kind of guarantees do you get with Google's backup compared to AWS Glacier? Are we talking 99% uptime or 99.9% or 99.999% etc. This can have a huge impact on cost.

 

Also what kind of guarantees does Google give you compared to AWS in relation to data loss, i.e. how safe is your data when stored there? Just like your own computer can suffer data loss, their services could do as well. What kind of contingencies do they have in place?

[A51UK]

If you want to be super space you could pick multi region, so a copy is safe in more than one region, but it cost more as you pay for each copy. I like say look at Azure as well, it good and you can keep more on one copy around the world not just one region (USA), it maybe cheap not sure. 

[LogicalDrm]

-> Moved to Programs, Apps and Websites