AWS Glacier's dazzling price benefits melt next to the cost of tape
zdnet.com
zdnet.com
It omitted any discussion of off-site backups. How much will that cost?
It ignores growth rate. Do you get the 5TB hardware solution now, when most of it isn't needed, or expand when needed? While with Glacier you just add data and don't worry about it. Assume you start with 1TB now, and grow by 0.8TB per year, to end with 5TB at the end of 5 years. That's almost a 2x reduction in price over the author's estimate.
But hey, that's all in the Amazon Glacier's front page: "Companies typically over-pay for data archiving. First, they're forced to make an expensive upfront payment for their archiving solution (which does not include the ongoing cost for operational expenses such as power, facilities, staffing, and maintenance). Second, since companies have to guess what their capacity requirements will be, they understandably over-provision to make sure they have enough capacity for data redundancy and unexpected growth. This set of circumstances results in under-utilized capacity and wasted money. With Amazon Glacier, you pay only for what you use."