6 ms·

Yeah, their software was really buggy so I ended up changing to crashplan. I've been using them for years without any regrets.

dagw 10y ago
Heh. I switched my wife from crashplan to backblaze about 18 month ago because I was tired of the crashplan client being buggy. Backblaze has just worked.
- hrrsn 10y ago
  I don't like CrashPlan very much, but my backups are way faster to them than they ever were to Backblaze. My home connection has 200mbit upload, so I don't think the bottleneck is on my side.
  - kalleboo 10y ago
    Funny, Backblaze backs up faster than my Apple Time Capsule. I'm on a 1 GBps home connection. I guess it all depends on your peering.
    - dagw 10y ago
      100 Mbps here, and backblaze uploads are a good 50-100% faster than crashplan
      - brianwski 10y ago
        Brian from Backblaze here. If you want to use more bandwidth in Backblaze, after you install find the Backblaze Control Panel, open the "Settings..." dialog, go to the "Performance" tab and UNSELECT "Automatic Throttle". Slide the manual slider all the way to the far far right. Then dial up the number of threads to 4 or 6. Seriously, you don't need to go any higher on the threads, after we use 100% of your bandwidth you can't get it to backup any faster. :-)
    - hrrsn 10y ago
      I suspect that latency has something to do with it. Crashplan's servers are a good 100ms closer to me.
thescriptkiddie 10y ago
I had to stop using crashplan because there is no way to roll back revisions within a file. If a file gets corrupted it'll just back up the corrupted version on top of what was previously a good backup.
- barrkel 10y ago
  ? That's not what I see in crashplan. Expand the tree view until you get to the file level, and then expand the files: it shows the times of the backup revisions. You can also specify a target time to restore to at the bottom of the restore tab.
- jarrodatCode42 10y ago
  Wanted to pop in here and expound on the topic. CrashPlan has versioning that is set (by default) to back up changed files in 15 minute increments. If a file is corrupted, CrashPlan will attempt to back up the changes as it is not a corruption detection utility. However, it's versioning allows for a user to easily restore the uncorrupted file by selecting a date prior to the corruption occurring. This process is explained in greater detail here: https://support.code42.com/CrashPlan/4/Troubleshooting/Recovering_Files_Infected_By_CryptoLocker_Or_CryptoWall https://support.code42.com/CrashPlan/4/Troubleshooting/Recov... The default versioning can be adjusted, so ultimately it's the responsibility of the individual user to confirm the health of their backup and verify the versioning frequency that best fits their needs.
swinglock 10y ago
The CrashPlan client is horrific but at least it runs on Linux unlike Backblaze. I was hoping Backblaze was better, too bad.
- haasn 10y ago
  Wait, wouldn't that be standard? I've never used online backup, but I would naively assume that Linux would just have a block device or FUSE driver for these things. How can that not be the case?
  - anonbiocoward 10y ago
    I'm not sure, what would a block device have to do with diff'd filesystem backups? And what would FUSE add? I'm pretty sure the CrashPlan client a .jar, so you just need a jvm, thus broad OS compatibility.
    - haasn 10y ago
      On second thought, block devices are sort of sketchy for this use case - but FUSE still seems like a perfectly natural way to export networked storage. I'd expect a backup hierarchy to just be a directory of read-only snapshots of my files - I mean, this is how I organize backups locally either way (e.g. /snapshot/YYYY-MM-DD/etc/whatever.conf). The advantage of using a standard API like filesystems and FUSE is that you can use it easily and from the terminal without needing to deal with bloated GUIs and JVMs that are no doubt hard to install, hard to use and hard to rely on. A JVM is also a pretty hefty requirement to have on a machine. (I personally avoid installing it all costs, mostly because everything that targets JVM seems to be crud to begin with)
- click170 10y ago
  This really kills me about Backblaze. I'd love to support them, I'd prefer no other backup vendor. That's why this is so hurtful: https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217664628-Is-Backblaze-going-to-offer-Linux-support- https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217664628-Is-Ba... Spoiler alert, the answer is a surprisingly firm no. Not even an optimistic "we're working on it!". Doesn't even have to be "Linux support", just open an API, we'll do the rest! Use quotas for API users if the concern is around abuse, but please help us Linux folks use your service! Please!

dagw 10y ago

Heh. I switched my wife from crashplan to backblaze about 18 month ago because I was tired of the crashplan client being buggy. Backblaze has just worked.

hrrsn 10y ago
I don't like CrashPlan very much, but my backups are way faster to them than they ever were to Backblaze. My home connection has 200mbit upload, so I don't think the bottleneck is on my side.
- kalleboo 10y ago
  Funny, Backblaze backs up faster than my Apple Time Capsule. I'm on a 1 GBps home connection. I guess it all depends on your peering.
  - dagw 10y ago
    100 Mbps here, and backblaze uploads are a good 50-100% faster than crashplan
    - brianwski 10y ago
      Brian from Backblaze here. If you want to use more bandwidth in Backblaze, after you install find the Backblaze Control Panel, open the "Settings..." dialog, go to the "Performance" tab and UNSELECT "Automatic Throttle". Slide the manual slider all the way to the far far right. Then dial up the number of threads to 4 or 6. Seriously, you don't need to go any higher on the threads, after we use 100% of your bandwidth you can't get it to backup any faster. :-)
  - hrrsn 10y ago
    I suspect that latency has something to do with it. Crashplan's servers are a good 100ms closer to me.

thescriptkiddie 10y ago

I had to stop using crashplan because there is no way to roll back revisions within a file. If a file gets corrupted it'll just back up the corrupted version on top of what was previously a good backup.

barrkel 10y ago
? That's not what I see in crashplan. Expand the tree view until you get to the file level, and then expand the files: it shows the times of the backup revisions. You can also specify a target time to restore to at the bottom of the restore tab.
jarrodatCode42 10y ago
Wanted to pop in here and expound on the topic. CrashPlan has versioning that is set (by default) to back up changed files in 15 minute increments. If a file is corrupted, CrashPlan will attempt to back up the changes as it is not a corruption detection utility. However, it's versioning allows for a user to easily restore the uncorrupted file by selecting a date prior to the corruption occurring. This process is explained in greater detail here: https://support.code42.com/CrashPlan/4/Troubleshooting/Recovering_Files_Infected_By_CryptoLocker_Or_CryptoWall https://support.code42.com/CrashPlan/4/Troubleshooting/Recov... The default versioning can be adjusted, so ultimately it's the responsibility of the individual user to confirm the health of their backup and verify the versioning frequency that best fits their needs.

swinglock 10y ago

The CrashPlan client is horrific but at least it runs on Linux unlike Backblaze. I was hoping Backblaze was better, too bad.

haasn 10y ago
Wait, wouldn't that be standard? I've never used online backup, but I would naively assume that Linux would just have a block device or FUSE driver for these things. How can that not be the case?
- anonbiocoward 10y ago
  I'm not sure, what would a block device have to do with diff'd filesystem backups? And what would FUSE add? I'm pretty sure the CrashPlan client a .jar, so you just need a jvm, thus broad OS compatibility.
  - haasn 10y ago
    On second thought, block devices are sort of sketchy for this use case - but FUSE still seems like a perfectly natural way to export networked storage. I'd expect a backup hierarchy to just be a directory of read-only snapshots of my files - I mean, this is how I organize backups locally either way (e.g. /snapshot/YYYY-MM-DD/etc/whatever.conf). The advantage of using a standard API like filesystems and FUSE is that you can use it easily and from the terminal without needing to deal with bloated GUIs and JVMs that are no doubt hard to install, hard to use and hard to rely on. A JVM is also a pretty hefty requirement to have on a machine. (I personally avoid installing it all costs, mostly because everything that targets JVM seems to be crud to begin with)
click170 10y ago
This really kills me about Backblaze. I'd love to support them, I'd prefer no other backup vendor. That's why this is so hurtful: https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217664628-Is-Backblaze-going-to-offer-Linux-support- https://help.backblaze.com/hc/en-us/articles/217664628-Is-Ba... Spoiler alert, the answer is a surprisingly firm no. Not even an optimistic "we're working on it!". Doesn't even have to be "Linux support", just open an API, we'll do the rest! Use quotas for API users if the concern is around abuse, but please help us Linux folks use your service! Please!