What users are saying about
14 Ratings
3 Ratings
14 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.7 out of 101
3 Ratings
<a href='https://www.trustradius.com/static/about-trustradius-scoring' target='_blank' rel='nofollow'>trScore algorithm: Learn more.</a>
Score 8.5 out of 101

Add comparison

Likelihood to Recommend

Amazon Glacier

As described in the use case, it is perfect for backup data storage where you do not expect to retrieve the data often. Think of it as a data dump; it is nice to know you have a backup, but it actually is expensive and somewhat difficult to retrieve everything.
Rytis Slatkevičius profile photo

GoodSync

[It's well suited for] duplication of files for transferring to a new machine or remote usage but I wouldn't use it if you needed to keep those places up to date all the time as it only works when you run it, not continuously.
Troy Alcorn profile photo

Pros

  • Cheap storage of backup data.
  • Can be used as a part of the entire suite of tools from Amazon, without requiring you to leave the familiar stack.
Rytis Slatkevičius profile photo
  • Quickly analyzes the drives and compares files and dates to give a complete picture
  • Gives you complete control over what to do with files that are similar but my not be matching. (same name, different size or date)
Troy Alcorn profile photo

Cons

  • Accessing data stored in Glacier is slow. That shouldn't be a surprise, but it is undesirable nonetheless.
  • Retrieving a large amount of data can be expensive; Glacier's intended use is as an archive of rarely-accessed data.
  • Some users regard Glacier with fear and uncertainty. Slow retrieval time and high retrieval cost are the greatest risks of using Glacier, and they are also the Glacier interaction that most users have the least experience with.
Gavin Hackeling profile photo
  • I don't really have any cons
Troy Alcorn profile photo

Usability

Amazon Glacier6.0
Based on 1 answer
It is difficult to delete the data as you have to wait for inventory and then bucket modification has to expire.
Rytis Slatkevičius profile photo
No score
No answers yet
No answers on this topic

Alternatives Considered

Since the rest of our infrastructure is in Amazon AWS, coding for sending data to Glacier just makes sense. The others are great as well, for their specific needs and uses, but having *another* third-party software to manage, be billed for, and learn/utilize can be costly in money and time.
No photo available
SyncToy - this is better at keeping 2 locations identical if they need to be that way at all times as it runs in the background as a service and updates in real time.
Troy Alcorn profile photo

Return on Investment

  • We seldom need to access our data in Glacier; this means that it is a fraction of the cost of S3, including the infrequent-access storage class.
  • Transitioning data to Glacier is managed by AWS. We don't need our engineers to build or maintain log pipelines.
  • Configuring lifecycle policies for S3 and Glacier is simple; it takes our engineers very little time, and there is little risk of errant configuration.
Gavin Hackeling profile photo
  • This has saved many hours of work because occasionally the flash drives die, break, fail or get left behind somewhere. The time to get all the files and software back in working order would take a day or two. By keeping several of them identical with GoodSync, work goes on without missing a beat.
Troy Alcorn profile photo

Screenshots

Amazon Glacier
GoodSync

Pricing Details

Amazon Glacier

General
Free Trial
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details

GoodSync

General
Free Trial
Yes
Free/Freemium Version
Premium Consulting/Integration Services
Yes
Entry-level set up fee?
No
Additional Pricing Details