Hi ,
tThe interface is the same, the intelligent tier is basically a checkbox in the backup plan configuration.
Mapping a huge drive to the machine that is an interface to S3 might not be a good idea as it might end up slowing down the machine and consuming too much of computer’s resources.
Why using native support for S3 is not something that you consider in the first place?
Thanks

Thanks Anton, the reason I'm looking at Cloudberry drive is on understanding that there isn't native support on Windows box to link to S3. Is there something I've missed here? The number of requests to the archive should be quite low so should be manageable. Using block storage or other options is too expensive and hosting locally would then become viable.

, the Drive product is more like a personal use software, don’t rely business processes on it, especially on a such scale, the performance might be an issue here. MSP360 ultimate will be the best fit here.
Thanks

I'm sorry Anton, but I think we are talking at cross purposes. From what I can see, Ultimate is a backup solution. I am moving the data from a system that is going to be retired into the cloud (S3) and want to be able to access it in a transparent way from Windows Server. The data will be static and I don't want a backup solution. There is a Cloudberry drive for Windows Server and this looked like a viable solution...but you are saying it isn't dependable?

Hi!

Let me get this straight: you're moving data from one of your machines to S3 bucket and want to access it via mapped drive, is that correct?

If that is the case this setup is fairly easy to achieve by simply adding your storage account in our Drive software, but with 1 BIG caveat: managing 10 TBs of data with Int in real-time would be very stressful for the system.

Perhaps Cloudberry Explorer might be more up to the task. It's not interrogated in Windows Explorer, but it features 2-tab interface similar to Total Commander and it handles large data sets better.

Hi Matt,
Yes, that's what I want to do.
As the archive will be static I'm not looking to manage it as such and may well opt to store it all as Standard Infrequent Access. It isn't intended that multiple users will be accessing the archive either, just the central PACS application servicing clinician requests. Because of this, I don't think the Explorer product is applicable. I'm not sure I understand what your caveat is, but I think, for the server licence cost, I'll try it and if it doesn't work out will use AWS Storage Gateway.
Thanks for your quick responses guys!

What I meant by "caveat" is that by default we use cache folder to buffer all the data to display, and if you have millions of files in your data set the performance won't be ideal. This is a pretty interesting setup, so the best way to check if our product suits your needs is to install the trial version and check how it performs in your environment.