Online Storage in Gmail Vs. Yahoo and AOL

[ttbar]

There's probably a simple answer to this question.

So Yahoo mail gives you unlimited storage capacity. I'm wondering where the catch is, as this clearly can't be true as written. Google offers you 16 TB for something like $4,000 a year. So say I'm looking for somewhere to store a couple TB of data, but $4,000 sounds like a lot of money. Why not use yahoo or AOL mail? I realize that they limit the attachment size of each email, but surely it wouldn't be too hard to set up a loop to, say, break up a large data file into 25 MB segments and send each subfile in its own email. Surely there must be some catch here, otherwise google couldn't get away charging $4,000 a year. Any answers?

[Anderwolfe]

Why would you need to store several TB of data online anyways?

[iPwn]

There currently is no size limit on Yahoo and with the disposable email addresses, theoretically, yes you could email yourself umpteen terabytes of information.

However, As Anderwolfe posed the question, what do you need that much online storage for? None of our business, sure, but this forum is not for illegal purposes so please don't abuse it.

[ttbar]

There are many reasons why one might want to store multiple TB of data. I don't really care if it is stored online, but if there is a way to store it online for free then that sounds better than buying a large external hard-drive.

And no, I'm not doing anything illegal. The data is generated by a large monte carlo simulation of an experiment.

[iPwn]

Gotchya, then yes you can theoretically store as much data as you want on Yahoo

[berry120]

I wouldn't store this much online for free. If nothing else, you've got 0 guarantee that whoever's storing it doesn't delete the data or take it all offline tomorrow. If you pay then you've at least got some guarantee they'll back up / look after the data / won't disable your account.