jungledisk is owned by rackspace and offers an option to choose Amazon S3 which charges for traffic whereby if data is stored on rackspace, no charges for traffic. For a small company, to just backup files with jungle disk from ubuntu linux OS computers, i wonder what to choose. Commercial psychologically the price on traffic and the Amazon brand make it appear or maybe it is, of better quality than the cheaper Rackspace offer which is when it comes for just backing up ok ? but if its about backing up around 30 GB which updates from time to time, what would you consider a good choice ?
Asked
Active
Viewed 1,164 times
1 Answers
3
Personally, I would recommend that you go with Rackspace Cloud Files. The Cloud Files implementation, I've found, is a bit faster than S3. S3 has some stability and scaling issues that cause the service to error or slow down at times.
You should also take in to consideration the latency from your location to the servers, as this will affect your speed. Rackspace Cloud Files is located in Dallas, Texas. S3 is located in Northern Virginia. I generally say if you're west of the rockies, S3 should not be considered, as the latency is pretty high. Outside the US, S3 UK may be a better option.
Hope that helps... Sorry if that sounded sales-ey or biased! JD support here.
Travis
- 31
- 1
-
Hi, thanks for responding. My location is in Mauritius, that small island to the east of Madagascar in the indian ocean. You think it will make a big difference if i use S3 Europe or Rackspace Dallas ? Maybe i wont even notice it ? My DSL connection is 1.2 Mbit, not really fast, and i need to backup around 30GB+. What are your thoughts on this ? – Dietmar Jan 10 '11 at 15:03
-
By the way, with S3 you have the option of storing your files in Singapore or Tokyo (they are called [regions](http://aws.amazon.com/s3/#functionality)). That might help a lot with latency. I don't know about Rackspace. – Andres Riofrio Apr 27 '12 at 20:04