Glacier for personal backup: s3 or directly (or Nearline?)

I'm looking to use AWS Glacier for personal backup, or the similar 'Nearline storage' from Google. I would prefer manually uploading stuff (instead of an automated backup solution). I'm aiming to store pictures and video, about 110G currently. This is backup, so I hope to not need to retrieve it, therefor (reasonable) costs and time for retrieval are not an issue.

Because Glacier seems to cost slightly less in storage (0.007$ vs 0.01$), I looked at that mostly so far. Google Nearline seems to be only marginally more expensive though, and maybe somewhat simpler in use? I'd appreciate any experience on the difference between the 2 in practice.

For Glacier, I'm now wondering: should I look at using it directly or through S3? What are the consequences for both?

• Some sites seem to suggest getting a list of files in folders from glacier-without-s3 is difficult (or costly?)
• Docs on s3-with-glacier seem to suggest there will be some storage on s3 as well (to store the data about the file being in Glacier, if I understand correctly), it's not clear to me how much that will add to the cost.
• Some backup solutions like cloudberry seem to support only s3-with-glacier, making me wonder what is the reason behind that.

Is there anything else to consider, anything I've missed? Hidden costs, things that would make using this difficult, ...?

Recent Questions...