Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

backblaze.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

211–220 of 293 posts

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#211

Post by atYevP »

anotheracct_ wrote: post #193
khc wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cloudflare is not charging different amount for different storage providers, some storage providers are waiving the fee when the upstream is cloudflare. disclaimer: ex-cloudflare

So, Backblaze is not-net-neutral.

As far as our service is concerned everyone pays the same price for B2 Cloud Storage, $0.005/GB. We're not a network provider and in this case neither is Cloudflare. We are both service providers. The partnership between us simply allows people to move data between us freely, but you still need to pay Backblaze B2 for the storage of the data, and you need to play Cloudflare for the distribution!

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#212

Post by jedberg »

mappu wrote: post #186
jedberg wrote: post #119

This is huge because it means you can use things like S3 Fuse to mount your storage. Which means you can use it to extend your local disk, or run your own backups, or whatever. Amusingly the price to store 1.2TB of data is the same as the cost of their backup plan, so if your disk is smaller than that, you could save a few bucks running your own backups. Until you have to restore (from what I can tell restores are fr…

rclone has long had a Fuse mount feature using the original B2 API.

Sure, but S3 Fuse is more mature, more stable, more feature complete, has a lot more usage and therefore a lot more visibility for possible bugs, especially corruption bugs.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#213

Post by dxxvi »

atYevP wrote: post #145
TechBro8615 wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Where can I find the pricing info for this allotment?

All of our pricing is available on the site (no need to call anyone) - B2 Cloud Storage is listed here -> https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html . Just scroll down for the transactions!

                                    Storage        Download
    BackBlaze                       .5 cents/GB    1 cent/GB
    S3 (one zone infrequent access) 1 cent/GB      9 cents/GB
I'll transfer my 250GB of videos and images from S3 to BackBlaze some day.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#214

Post by anderspitman »

sida wrote: post #99

Can Amazon actually patent their API (per the google vs oracle case) - basically like prevent other vendors to provide S3 APIs so that Amazon can lock in users. I am not a lawyer. So this is a genuine / dumb question.

I suspect a move like that would trigger a cloudpocalpyse that would actually be beneficial in the mid- and long-term.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#215

Post by atYevP »

dxxvi wrote: post #213
atYevP wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All of our pricing is available on the site (no need to call anyone) - B2 Cloud Storage is listed here -> https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html . Just scroll down for the transactions!

Storage Download BackBlaze .5 cents/GB 1 cent/GB S3 (one zone infrequent access) 1 cent/GB 9 cents/GB I'll transfer my 250GB of videos and images from S3 to BackBlaze some day.

Heh, we make it easy! Check out this Flexify partnership -> https://www.backblaze.com/blog/supercharged-data-migration-w...

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#216

Post by cdumler »

kevstev wrote: post #172
kstrauser wrote: post #69

As a Synology user, please let this mean that Hyper Backup can work with B2 now (or at least soon).

I was trying to see if this was now better than Glacier- and aside from the SLA's being much better in terms of retrieval, I am not sure they make sense for a backup use case- where you are only really planning on downloading that data back down in a worst case scenario. It may depend on what your incremental backups look like as well- mine are negligible- a dump of a few GB of photos after holidays, other records ar…

My two cents is that there is no reason to _use_ Glacier as a backup strategy. Glacier's cost come for restoration: the more you restore and the faster you want to restore it, the more quickly costs rise. It's far better suited for a collection where you're pretty much most of it will never be restored but what you'll need to restore you don't know. Think video, art, music assets for projects. B2's retrieval is far, far lower cost and completely immediate for restoring an entire backup back to a server. If you're not careful that extra .5 cents you save will really cost you on a full restore.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#218

Post by NikolaeVarius »

anotheracct_ wrote: post #193
khc wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

cloudflare is not charging different amount for different storage providers, some storage providers are waiving the fee when the upstream is cloudflare. disclaimer: ex-cloudflare

So, Backblaze is not-net-neutral.

You are ignoring the responses to your original point. This is not relevant to net neutrality.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#219

Post by apitman »

dopamean wrote: post #5

I have a decent sized music collection consisting a lot of lossless vinyl rips that I've made from my record collection. It totals around 200gigs at the moment but is growing weekly. I've been looking for somewhere to back this all up in the cloud and backblaze is looking most promising at the moment. Anyone here have any thoughts on where I should go with this?

My current setup is Freenas VM with 2 3TB ZFS mirrored WD reds. I run restic from those to a 3rd 3TB red over USB. Then I rclone the encrypted restic backup to B2, so it's e2e encrypted from Backblaze's point of view.

I'm considering ditching the VM and using ZFS on linux, and just doing straight rclone to both the USB disk and Backblaze, for the following reasons:

TL;DR - my thread model is essentially me accidentally deleting something, and bitrot, and I think this setup is overkill for that.

* All operations mentioned take forever. Cutting the encryption I think might speed things up a lot (not sure about this, the key question is if the encryption is causing a lot of extra io operations).

* I'm afraid of losing my restic encryption key. I have multiple copies of my keepass file but if syncthing decides to delete them, both of my backups become useless.

* Backblaze has earned my trust, and in the unlikely event someone hacks my data, there's not much valuable there. I would probably switch to encrypting a single directory with the few things I care about being exposed. Even if I keep encrypting the whole thing, I would use something more boring than restic.

* I'm not sure I've ever needed to restore an old version of a file with restic (there may have been one time early on). I think deduplication is overkill for my needs as well. It's cool tech, I just don't think I need the complexity.

Re: Backblaze B2 Cloud Storage Now Has S3 Compatible APIs

#220

Post by derefr »

sp332 wrote: post #203
anderspitman wrote: post #194

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's odd. I can't recall ever having a problem with browsers playing mp4s in a vanilla tag, as long as I encode them in the main h264 profile, AAC audio, and MOOV atom at the front (see [0] for ffmpeg command). Obviously the server has to support Range: byte requests. My impression is DASH/HLS are mostly useful for adjusting bitrate on the fly. [0]: https://superuser.com/a/438471/402047

When the parent talks about jumping to random byte offsets, they mean you don't have the first part of the file at all. You just have an arbitrary 512-MB chunk out of the middle.

Right. Like tuning into a digital-cable signal "in the middle"†. You just get bytes of the stream starting from an arbitrary offset, without having seen/processed anything before that (and without even being able to request anything before that), and you need to resynchronize from what you've got.

† I mean, a digital-cable video stream is always "in the middle" unless you're just starting a VOD stream, but still.

Post reply on HN