New Lightroom line-up

[kenoh]

Every reputable company hosting stuff on the cloud backs it up. It's assumed anyone would know that. Not only for protecting the files, but to facilitate upgrades, etc etc etc. I dunno what server farm or third party Adobe uses for hosting, but you can find out more here: http://www.adobe.com/security/resources.html

I read somewhere they are gonna release a downloader application specifically for these cloud files, so you could get them back if you don't have local copies.

The big question is whether you could get the image adjustments back. But that's an issue with any software product where you make changes that you might wanna transfer to another program.

I have read that and they use Amazon S3 as the back end storage for your creative cloud storage farm. That is not a backed up service unless you pay the premium for it. The data is replicated across AWS zones for fault tolerance, but no, it isn't backed up per se. Granted, the risk of a catastrophic failure taking out multiple zones today is negligible but still don't rely on it as safe storage for your photo library. Also in the forums, Adobe support states "No you really shouldn't use this as backup storage."

It is a file sync solution like Dropbox except with services wrapped around it.

Which is fine, but just know its limitations.

 

[maflynn]

I have read that and they use Amazon S3 as the back end storage for your creative cloud storage farm. That is not a backed up service unless you pay the premium for it.

Agreed, you can't just assume that your data is safe. This is the danger with cloud services imo, people have the mentality that the organization they're trusting their data is doing everything they can to protect it. If its not written its not said, and you should not assume

 

[Apple fanboy]

Agreed, you can't just assume that your data is safe. This is the danger with cloud services imo, people have the mentality that the organization they're trusting their data is doing everything they can to protect it. If its not written its not said, and you should not assume

Even if it is written then you should make other plans.
But then how many people keep all their data on one computer with no backup? Quite a few!

 

[kenoh]

Agreed, you can't just assume that your data is safe. This is the danger with cloud services imo, people have the mentality that the organization they're trusting their data is doing everything they can to protect it. If its not written its not said, and you should not assume

Correct.... and thinking about it... there are few backup solutions available today that can handle large file storage at those volumes...

AWS S3 backups cost $0.0245 per GB per month. Assume a user has on average 300GB (this is an arbitrary number and assumes an average to cover some users having full storage, others hardly any). 300GB is going to be roughly $7.35 a month or $88 a year no way your $20 a month covers the costs of S3 backups plus delivery of the service and re-investing in R&D. So I think we are in the realms of fault tolerant storage.