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

Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

backblaze.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

1–10 of 130 posts

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#2

Post by semicolon_storm »

Very surprised it took this long to implement. I’ve had a good experience with B2B + Duplicati, but the main reason I went with that over the simpler Backblaze Cloud was the retention policy. 30 days to recover files was just too short of a time span to be a guarantee that my files were safe.

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#3

Post by atYevP »

semicolon_storm wrote: post #2

Very surprised it took this long to implement. I’ve had a good experience with B2B + Duplicati, but the main reason I went with that over the simpler Backblaze Cloud was the retention policy. 30 days to recover files was just too short of a time span to be a guarantee that my files were safe.

Yev here -> Glad you're enjoying the Duplicati integration with B2! It did take us a while, but we wanted to make sure that we did it the right way and in a sustainable fashion. It's been an ongoing project for the past 10 months or so - and came after a lot of customer demand following CrashPlan leaving the consumer market. We're hoping people dig it, apologies it took so long!

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#4

Post by zomg »

i've been a customer of backblaze for a about a decade now. everyone has their opinion, but for me, it's always just hummed along in the background, doing it's thing. i've had to restore almost a terabyte of data (on more than one occasion, derp) -- and had no issues.

it's up there (again, for me) as one of the annual software subscriptions that's worth every penny, if not more.

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#5

Post by tpmx »

Do they still have a very slow upload performance with their backup service? That's been the main complaint I've been reading over the years. (I'd probably be happy with something in the range of 50-100 Mbit/s.) (My home connection is 250/100.)

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#6

Post by atYevP »

tpmx wrote: post #5

Do they still have a very slow upload performance with their backup service? That's been the main complaint I've been reading over the years. (I'd probably be happy with something in the range of 50-100 Mbit/s.) (My home connection is 250/100.)

Yev here -> try it now. We've spent the last few updates honing in the way we handle uploads and have introduce threading to make the process more efficient. We'll always be bottle-necked by the available bandwidth to your machine and latency, but it's worth trying again if you haven't for a while!

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#7

Post by atYevP »

zomg wrote: post #4

i've been a customer of backblaze for a about a decade now. everyone has their opinion, but for me, it's always just hummed along in the background, doing it's thing. i've had to restore almost a terabyte of data (on more than one occasion, derp) -- and had no issues. it's up there (again, for me) as one of the annual software subscriptions that's worth every penny, if not more.

Yev here -> Thank you so much! :D

Re: Backblaze 7.0 – Version History and Beyond

#8

Post by tpmx »

atYevP wrote: post #6
tpmx wrote: post #5

Do they still have a very slow upload performance with their backup service? That's been the main complaint I've been reading over the years. (I'd probably be happy with something in the range of 50-100 Mbit/s.) (My home connection is 250/100.)

Yev here -> try it now. We've spent the last few updates honing in the way we handle uploads and have introduce threading to make the process more efficient. We'll always be bottle-necked by the available bandwidth to your machine and latency, but it's worth trying again if you haven't for a while!

Sure, but you surely you have stats? And why is latency a factor - surely you can work around that by improving your network protocol (think less TCP, more QUIC or something similar, etc)?

Anyway, okay, I'll test your trial again. :)

Post reply on HN