<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?><rss xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom" version="2.0"><channel><title><![CDATA[Cheapest way to host 1TB+ of backups?]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">I need a server primarily for long-term backups and large file storage, but I don't want to overspend on high-end NVMe drives. Does anyone have suggestions for a cost-effective setup where raw capacity is more important than speed? Is there a specific type of plan that’s best for keeping a massive archive accessible without a huge monthly bill?</p>
]]></description><link>http://forger.forums.maxon.net/topic/1565/cheapest-way-to-host-1tb-of-backups</link><generator>RSS for Node</generator><lastBuildDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 20:54:48 GMT</lastBuildDate><atom:link href="http://forger.forums.maxon.net/topic/1565.rss" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml"/><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:26:48 GMT</pubDate><ttl>60</ttl><item><title><![CDATA[Reply to Cheapest way to host 1TB+ of backups? on Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:37:45 GMT]]></title><description><![CDATA[<p dir="auto">If you have a lot of data that doesn't need the speed of an SSD, going with a mechanical drive setup is a smart way to save money. You can find very <a href="https://www.hostzealot.com/vps/hdd" rel="nofollow ugc">affordable VPS plans</a> that offer high-capacity storage at a fraction of the cost. I use one for my secondary backups and it works perfectly for keeping large archives accessible without a massive monthly bill. It’s definitely the most cost-effective route for storage-heavy projects where raw disk space is more important than lightning-fast read/write speeds.</p>
]]></description><link>http://forger.forums.maxon.net/post/1884</link><guid isPermaLink="true">http://forger.forums.maxon.net/post/1884</guid><dc:creator><![CDATA[safety-nail]]></dc:creator><pubDate>Wed, 08 Apr 2026 17:37:45 GMT</pubDate></item></channel></rss>