Is it practical to use JungleDisk as a music library? [closed]

"My hard drives have crashed too many
times for me to want to continue
keeping my music library at home...

That's why you use Amazon S3 & Jungledisk. With Jungledisk, your media files are backed up to the cloud and you can listen to them from the local copy. If the disk crashes, replace it and recover from the cloud.

Amazon charges you to upload, download, and store. So, it will cost you to initially upload them (currently $0.100 per GB), it will cost you to store them (currently $0.150 per GB per month), and it will cost you to download them (currently $0.170 per GB). There are volume discounts, but only when the volumes get really huge. They do also charge for requests, but those charges are pretty negligible.

If you don't keep local copies, and always pull your music files from the cloud, you'll have to pay to listen to every song, every time. Doesn't make much sense to me."

I don't think it's practical to use S3/JungleDisk as a music library because the bandwidth will likely be just too low to be useful. You are also charged for both bandwidth (reads and writes) and requests, which could very well get expensive. Ultimately, an external RAID setup seems like a far more practical, fast, and accessible solution to your situation. It may even end up being cheaper in the long run. If you wanted to, you could have JungleDisk function, instead, as an offsite backup for your music, which would cost less (because it would use less bandwidth).