Live data from Hacker News

Backblaze S-1 IPO

sec.gov

61–70 of 253 posts

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#61
post #49
post #42

I feel bad for taking advantage of their personal backup plan ($60/yr) now that I see they're struggling to gross a profit. I just can't find a better way to back up 80TB offsite with that value.

I'd feel deeply uncomfortable backing up 80tb of data to a $60/year plan, tbh.

[deleted]

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#62
post #51
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that. It's also that I don't really trust anything centralized anymore, and internet speeds are such that homegrown solutions are becoming more and more attractive. Another benefit is that I'll also be able to easily backup my Linux machines, which BB currently does not support. At the moment I just periodically copy data to windows on cron so that it's backed up - not ideal to say the least.

What would happen if your backup harddrive at your friends' place was stolen / destroyed / went bad?

I'd have to send him another hard drive, obviously.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#63
post #42

I feel bad for taking advantage of their personal backup plan ($60/yr) now that I see they're struggling to gross a profit. I just can't find a better way to back up 80TB offsite with that value.

People ask about numbers like this all the time on the subreddit, and their people always say it's allowed. The main point they bring up is B2 is better suited for large amounts of data.

For example:

https://old.reddit.com/r/backblaze/comments/g26lgt/max_capac...

https://old.reddit.com/r/backblaze/comments/arnlyr/10tb_on_b...

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#64
post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, I was until I switched to restic and saved a bunch of money. I still get unlimited storage with G Suite. You can also get 6TB of annual storage with Office 365 family plan for $80 at Costco.

Backblaze is $70/yr unlimited. Did you save $-10?

That type of backup does not work on Linux or for network attached drives. I guess if you are willing to run Windows on your NAS then it technically works but it's a pretty ugly hack and the 'sync' will happily delete files that are accidentally deleted or corrupted.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#65
post #58
post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not just that. It's also that I don't really trust anything centralized anymore, and internet speeds are such that homegrown solutions are becoming more and more attractive. Another benefit is that I'll also be able to easily backup my Linux machines, which BB currently does not support. At the moment I just periodically copy data to windows on cron so that it's backed up - not ideal to say the least.

I back things up to Backblaze B2 from Linux using borg. It works really well and it's incredibly cheap. I'm paying less than $1/month to keep about 155GB of data there. About half the data is from Borg backups, the other is rcloned copies of my music files.

What's your process for backing up to B2 using borg?

I'm currently doing borg backups to a local server, then using restic to back up my borg backups to B2. My reason for using restic over rclone is so that if the local backup is corrupted I've got history on the remote to fall back to.

I'm hoping to find a less cumbersome way to do this.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#66
post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tried rsync.net?

They were talking about switching if they got more expensive and rsync.net is already a lot more expensive unless you have very little data (<300GB).

rsync.net is a very different product though.

I recently evaluated a bunch of cloud storage/backup services. rsync.net is a ssh-accessible ZFS filesystem (including support for zfs send/recv) in the cloud, B2 is object storage.

rsync.net has a cheaper version aimed at people doing borg backups. Unfortunately it's still 3x the cost of B2 for 1TB of data.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#68
post #53
post #42

I feel bad for taking advantage of their personal backup plan ($60/yr) now that I see they're struggling to gross a profit. I just can't find a better way to back up 80TB offsite with that value.

I haven’t looked at their numbers at all but Amazon was also famously unprofitable for like the first 10 years even after ipo, sometimes it’s just accounting games.

Amazon has also occasionally paused their rapid expansion for one quarter, just to prove that they can be profitable when they want to. Then, they continue spending all the money that comes in and more, to expand again. If you think the money is well-spent (big if), then being unprofitable might just mean you are spending now to be more profitable later because you can.

The main issue is that if you haven't tried to be profitable, how do you know for sure you're spending the money wisely?

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#69
post #42

I feel bad for taking advantage of their personal backup plan ($60/yr) now that I see they're struggling to gross a profit. I just can't find a better way to back up 80TB offsite with that value.

Weird scenario where you have 80TB of data, but a tight budget to back it up. I guess it is some kind of hobby thing.

Re: Backblaze S-1 IPO

#70
post #42

I feel bad for taking advantage of their personal backup plan ($60/yr) now that I see they're struggling to gross a profit. I just can't find a better way to back up 80TB offsite with that value.

According to Backblaze's calculator[0], it would cost $4,800/yr to store 80TB on Backblaze B2 and you're storing it for $60/yr. Cases like these are why unlimited storage plans don't make sense...

Also it irks me that the personal backup plan forbids network drives [1]. I can't backup my 4TB NAS but 80TB is fine because it's stored on one machine?

0 - https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-pricing.html

1 - https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217665478-Why-d...

Post reply on HN