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

Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

backblaze.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 100 posts

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#11

Post by Symbiote »

karmakaze wrote: post #2

Does anyone have experience using this to sync between a Windows PC and a Mac? I've tried using OneDrive and it's pretty bad. I basically keep it disabled until I remember, "hey I haven't synced in a while, turn it on until complete, then turn off again."

I've used Syncthing to sync between Mac, Linux and Android. They have a Windows client.

It's not the most intuitive software to set up, especially on mobile where there are confusing filesystem restrictions from the OS, but once set up seems to work nicely.

I don't use the versioning / read-only features, so I don't know how well it performs for sort-of-backup purposes.

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#12

Post by toomuchtodo »

thisisbrians wrote: post #5

I, for one, am happy to pay a bit more to keep supporting Backblaze. More than worth the $7/mo to sleep better at night, and the service has worked flawlessly for me.

Also a Backblaze unlimited backups user. The Mac app still doesn't autoupdate gracefully on demand using something like the Sparkle framework (clicking "Check for updates" brings up a prompt which takes you to a browser window to download a zip file you have to open and perform a traditional manual reinstall). The mobile app (at least on iOS) is seriously lacking. The restore experience is minimum viable (compared to Arq and Time Machine). Are my files backed up? Sure. Do I feel like I'm getting value? I'd move to iCloud TimeMachine target if Apple rolled it out today as part of iCloud; the value isn't in the object storage (even Apple uses S3 and Google Object Storage on the backend), it's in the backup and restore experience.

Maybe my expectations are too high; I'm looking for a UX as beautifully put together as Dropbox (both on Mac and iOS).

EDIT: I will compliment the ease at which I can pick a filesystem tree and snapshot it to their B2 storage system (say, for snapshotting all of my Apple Photos Library at points in time), but it too has a lot of rough edges.

(using ~332GB of storage for backups, which is ~$20/year using Backblaze B2 vs unlimited backups offering; Arq offers five computers and 1TB of cloud storage for $60/year)

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#13

Post by kylehotchkiss »

I went the "DIY" Arq/AWS Glacier Deep Archive route for personal backups. I have roughly 2-3TB of storage and pay about $5/month for it (I think a bit of that cost is just uploads of new backup data and that all churns through normal S3 until the lifecycle marks the files as Deep Archive later).

BackBlaze's backup option looks a whole lot more elegant and would absolutely be a lot cheaper for restores. The small price raise seems like a good business strategy from their side - I'm just here to remind people the "DIY" backups pathway isn't that much more inexpensive. I just stick with my "DIY" path because I'm mostly backing up my external time machine and media disks, and enjoy having full control over the encryption keys.

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#15

Post by kevincox »

Laminary wrote: post #7

Working in video production, I know there are a lot of videographers and photographers "abusing" the unlimited nature of this service. It's not my business how BackBlaze does things, or if the usage falls within their acceptable use policy, but I see so many in my industry brag about the insanely cheap rates BackBlaze offers on their computer backup. From my armchair, it seems like a bunch of personal users subsidize…

Exactly this "truly unlimited" sounds nice until you realize that you are paying for the average user of the service. In terms of cost it is good if you are above average, bad if you are below average.

Of course there is a real UX benefit to unlimited. You don't need to worry about what you can back up, project your growth and cost or hitting your limit. It is definitely simpler from the user side.

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#16

Post by nerdponx »

Laminary wrote: post #7

Working in video production, I know there are a lot of videographers and photographers "abusing" the unlimited nature of this service. It's not my business how BackBlaze does things, or if the usage falls within their acceptable use policy, but I see so many in my industry brag about the insanely cheap rates BackBlaze offers on their computer backup. From my armchair, it seems like a bunch of personal users subsidize…

+1 and same considerations apply for Linux users. Just charge people for usage above a certain threshold (high storage and bandwidth) and give "normal" people the flat rate.

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#17

Post by kylehotchkiss »

eyeball wrote: post #8

Since this thread might attract people who know … I’m looking at getting a NAS for home backup to get my data out of cloud services. Is synology still a good option for this? I’ve read that they are starting to engage in some anti-user behaviors like restricting the types of drives that can be used with their gear.

You still should backup your NAS to the cloud per the 3-2-1 backups strategy (3 copies of data, 2 types of storage, 1 offsite copy). Synology has an app that can do that for you. If you're stashing away a lot of data on your NAS the cloud storage fees won't be too much cheaper than BackBlaze.

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#18

Post by chomp »

eyeball wrote: post #8

Since this thread might attract people who know … I’m looking at getting a NAS for home backup to get my data out of cloud services. Is synology still a good option for this? I’ve read that they are starting to engage in some anti-user behaviors like restricting the types of drives that can be used with their gear.

Depends on how technical you are, how much data you have, and how much you like to tinker.

Buying an appliance off the shelf is usually going to have limitations. I built my own personally, using a pile of WD reds and an old i7 that was destined for disposal. This is optimal for my use because I can expand it if I need to, I have full control of my data and appliance, and it's really zero maintenance once it's set up.

If you want to set it and forget it, get a QNAP or Synology. If you want to tinker with it, build your own.

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#19

Post by kingsloi »

eyeball wrote: post #8

Since this thread might attract people who know … I’m looking at getting a NAS for home backup to get my data out of cloud services. Is synology still a good option for this? I’ve read that they are starting to engage in some anti-user behaviors like restricting the types of drives that can be used with their gear.

I'm de-Gooling myself, and a few months ago purchased the following:

- Synology DiskStation DS720+ - Seagate 4TB IronWolf Pro - APC Smart-UPS SC 450VA

I'm genuinely happy with it, the Synology "OS" (or w/e) is pretty good. Honestly, I just wanted photo backup, and their "Moments" photo software really isn't too shabby.

Now, if someone could help me battleproof it, that'd be wonderful. I've setup a cron to turn it off at Midnight, just so I only use it when I need it. Hearing about those 0days affecting those other NAS's makes me super paranoid about self-hosting all my stuff, so until then it's off until I need it

Re: Subscription Changes for Computer Backup

#20

Post by bakugo »

vmlinuz wrote: post #14

I know it sounds like a broken MP3, but I don't see "support for Linux on non-servers" on that list of improvements - apparently because they still think only Linux users have large hard drives...

It's just not as easy to stop abuse on Linux, people would find a way to backup their 50TB NAS on it.
Post reply on HN