21–30 of 55 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. Especially when it comes to HTTPS.
"No it doesn't" what? That it's ok to trust https to keep a huge download completely error free?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from working in IT support, it's frustrating to me that you've made a big public ordeal over something that, firstly was fixed by rebooting your PC, and secondly you haven't tried downloading the file a second time. I'm not necessarily defending Backblaze here, but posting this when it doesn't work quite right the first time seems a bit harsh. I feel like we need more information before we all grab our pitchfo…
There is no excuse for independent download software to fail because chrome is running, I don't care how fixed it is by a reboot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Correct. They appear to basically zip the data using 7-zip and then transfer it, but I'm not sure what sort of hashing/checking they do to make sure the file makes it to me successfully. Very possible that the next time I download the 6GB file it will work. But given how long it takes to do that, 1) I'd like to know it will work and 2) tougher for me to consider utilizing the free option of doing this for all ~400 GB…
Coming from working in IT support, it's frustrating to me that you've made a big public ordeal over something that, firstly was fixed by rebooting your PC, and secondly you haven't tried downloading the file a second time. I'm not necessarily defending Backblaze here, but posting this when it doesn't work quite right the first time seems a bit harsh. I feel like we need more information before we all grab our pitchfo…
* I went out of my way to avoid Pitchforks, merely calling attention to an issue and also ensuring I blamed myself enough * A 6GB download took 12+ hours. How many times am I supposed to wait for critical data that long to have it fail, and what happens when I try my 340 GB restoration, wait weeks, and it fails? * I think there are many potential better ways of doing it -- breaking into chunks and verifying each chunk as it is downloaded, any sort of check before the application says "complete", a little more finesse than merely using 7-Zip, etc. There are ways the experience could be improved is the point I'm making, since as customers this is the part where Backblaze really earns its keep.
I have no desire for pitchforks, which is why I pointed out that the CEO was extremely helpful and that I'm hopeful the problem will be resolved.
This is not an attempt to shame / dump on Backblaze; if they resolve the problem I'll very much still recommend and use them. However, both sides of the issue (my idiocy/negligence and Backblaze's areas for improvement) seem to be worth discussing.
This is a little disconcerting. I have 3 computers backed up with Backblaze. I had a successful 350 GB restore last week. I hope that wasn't an anomaly.
From what I gather, my situation may be the anomaly. Still concerning though. I'm still processing a 340 GB restore in the hopes that this one will go better. We'll see. Your success has me hopeful!
You _have_ actually tested restoring from your only backup solution at a service you've been evangelizing for years, right?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Coming from working in IT support, it's frustrating to me that you've made a big public ordeal over something that, firstly was fixed by rebooting your PC, and secondly you haven't tried downloading the file a second time. I'm not necessarily defending Backblaze here, but posting this when it doesn't work quite right the first time seems a bit harsh. I feel like we need more information before we all grab our pitchfo…
There is no excuse for independent download software to fail because chrome is running, I don't care how fixed it is by a reboot.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
No it doesn't. Especially when it comes to HTTPS.
"No it doesn't" what? That it's ok to trust https to keep a huge download completely error free?
If there was data corruption in the HTTPS stream, it wouldn't decrypt correctly or the packet wouldn't checksum correctly and it would be retransmitted.
TCP works just fine over wired vs wireless.
Their selling point is "Unlimited data backup for your Mac or PC, just $5/month." If you're in tech that should tell you it's not for storing "mission critical data" (paraphrasing the blogpost). For $5/month you can also not expect round the clock, seven days a week personal attention. Don't get me wrong, Backblaze seems like a kickass service for an off-site backup of my personal data.
And to clarify, I don't expect personal attention. Contacting the CEO was because I thought there might be a legitimate problem with a server and support hadn't responded, and writing this blog came after I'd attempted to follow up with support but hadn't heard back for over 8 hours.
I've stated this elsewhere on the thread but I'm by no means out to shame Backblaze. I think there are some UX points worth revisiting, and I may be looking at another provider, but I'm not trying to damn the company. I think it's a discussion worth having on how they might do things better (and also how I might do things better).
Please don't singly use cloud backups. Your first line should be a local backup solution like a Time Capsule or other NAS device. Blind trust in a black box backup is not prudent.
Why isn't the SaaS industry in general roundly criticized as the fly by night hacks they always turn out to be when someone gets burnt?
I also lost a drive recently and found that while uploading to them was a breeze, the download was coming in at 14KB/s. I thought I was the one having a problem, but maybe not.