« All The News That Is Fit To Print? | Main | Mozy Revisited »

April 03, 2008


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

Darren McBride

Mozy is indeed a compelling value, as long as data size doesn't get too large as mentioned in my comments to your previous post. I pointed Mozy at 100GB of data last year and waited a month with a 3Mbps connection to the internet and it still hadn't finished (Probably I had something configured wrong - the software kept stopping on me). Anyway, I'm curious of your take on Amazon's S3, which seems about 7 times less expensive for raw storage, although they don't have the software Mozy does. But coupled with $20 software like Jungledisk.com it seems reasonable to at least compare. (disclaimer - I have no interest in either jungledisk or Amazon - just respect your opinion and am curious about the differences.


Amazon S3 is cheaper it terms of pure storage costs, but the biggest draw for Mozy is that it's a dead-simple install. Amazon S3 requires you to setup an account, mount the container using JungleDisk, and use either NTBACKUP or some other utility (JungleDisk does backup) but it still has to be managed. And good luck if you're running IIS on that machine for any reason, JungleDisk uses WebDAV (port 80) which conflicts with IIS.

Both have its merits. For more granular control of backups (and if you have the resources), Amazon S3 works great. But for the simple home user that doesn't care or know -- I'd recommend Mozy in a heartbeat.

Disclaimer:* I use both Amazon and Mozy.

The comments to this entry are closed.

Search The Backup Blog

  • Search