271–280 of 293 posts
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!
What does "Charged for any portion of a GB." mean?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Hey I've been wondering this but are the transaction costs also waived or is it just the bandwidth fees? I feel like if both are gone it'd be hard to make a profit...
For that integration it's just the download fees. The transactions do still get billed, but many people can stay within the free daily allotment.
if I use against-the-alliance corp, i will just pay the storage+download from backblaze, just the same as using in-bed-with-alliance corp.
Or does the alliance will ensure i only get charged for 1download per file per billing cycle, no matter if the CDN cache can't hold all the data and they download it many times? Does the alliance ensure (and more importantly, who monitors) it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
For that integration it's just the download fees. The transactions do still get billed, but many people can stay within the free daily allotment.
What's the point of the Alliance in this case? if I use against-the-alliance corp, i will just pay the storage+download from backblaze, just the same as using in-bed-with-alliance corp. Or does the alliance will ensure i only get charged for 1download per file per billing cycle, no matter if the CDN cache can't hold all the data and they download it many times? Does the alliance ensure (and more importantly, who moni…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. I'm also not a lawyer. :-) > 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. Most likely yes. Backblaze plans going forward are to fully, uncompromisingly maintain our original native B2 APIs for a few reasons including this concern. It's probably up to Amazon whether they…
This is kind of scary that companies can patent an interface. So google cloud is actually expected to also have this potential legal time bomb? Amazon can sue you and retroactively force you to pay them right? So all they need to do is to wait for the alternatives to become popular
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It sounded like the price would be different if you used a certain network provider, which is not-net-neutral.
I believe in this case Cloudflare and Backblaze would be considered service providers, not network providers (like Comcast or AT&T, etc...). And you'd still need to pay each service individually for the service they're providing. It's an alternative to say, Amazon S3 and their own CDN which also does not charge for egress in between the two services (since they own both). But in our case, you pay Backblaze B2 Cloud S…
I don't understand you. If you don't believe in net neutrality, which is obvious through your actions, you can just say so instead of cowardly dodging it.
Or if you truly somehow thought you could support net neutrality, without being neutral to networks, allow me to dispel your illusion and excuse.
Helpful reading: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Zero-rating
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
This is for home use- which maybe I was wrongly assuming that most Synology users are. In a business context you might have a more routine need to recover backups and those costs become more tangible.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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,…
If you can wait a few hours, the better comparison is probably Glacier Deep Archive, which is not $4/TB/month but $1/TB/month. Amazon wants to charge you $90/TB* to get data to the outside world, compared to B2's $10, but you can mitigate it in various ways. At the low end that's using a lightsail instance as a VPN, depending whether you think the TOS allows that. At the high end it's paying flexify.io $40 to move yo…
I use this as an offsite backup- that as long as disaster does not strike, I will never use, and even if does, I can be patient about restoring.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer - Backblaze employee here, but just speaking for myself: It was.. sort of cheaper. They didn't actually build the servers, and as described the server wouldn't work (onboard SATA didn't support port multipliers, lack of ECC would probably cause problems in practice, bit hand-wavey on power/space/network/manpower costs, etc). The goal of the article was to get other people to build cheap storage and put it…
How far off do you reckon Backblaze is from designing your own motherboards + electronics, with just the pieces you need? :)
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Disclaimer - Backblaze employee here, but just speaking for myself: It was.. sort of cheaper. They didn't actually build the servers, and as described the server wouldn't work (onboard SATA didn't support port multipliers, lack of ECC would probably cause problems in practice, bit hand-wavey on power/space/network/manpower costs, etc). The goal of the article was to get other people to build cheap storage and put it…
With the client responsible for chunking, redundancy, and error correction, I don't think the lack of ECC really matters for their use case. The rest of the issues are more important. Edit: The motherboard they picked does support ECC memory, anyway. In general ASRock models do.
You're right though - since the client's doing the work and they have a lot of redundancy/diversity in the storage it's not as big of a deal for them as it would be for us. I'd be a bit wary because the client-only verification does mean that there's no verification-with-ECC step in the entire chain, but I'm not sure that's significantly worse in terms of actual risk.
Used B2 heavily until recently as a origin server for a CDN. Few weeks ago we saw a spike in 502 / 504 responses. When I contacted their customer supported , I was pointed to the following URL where they explain in detail how they handle these errors https://www.backblaze.com/blog/b2-503-500-server-error/ Essentially they are not considered as errors and expect the client to retry loading the file. This approach won'…