4 ms·

https://www.backblaze.com https://www.backblaze.com

by crudbug 10y ago

deleted 10y ago
[deleted]
hga 10y ago
As far as I can tell, they're still operating out of one data centers, and while they claim it's Sacramento location is outside of earthquake danger zones, I can still see one to the west impacting availability depending on fiber routing, electrical supply, etc. Echoing another comment, I'm not sure if this is a big a danger as a programmer's or operator's potential to wipe out all your data no matter how many datacenters it's located in, but....
- ProblemFactory 10y ago
  That seems acceptable for a consumer backup (not cloud storage) solution. I have data on my laptop, an external disk that I keep at home, and BackBlaze. The likelihood of all three failing in the same week so that I can't restore from any single copy is low.
  - hga 10y ago
    Indeed, and I have seriously considered them for their 71% lower price than AWS Glacier and now Google's Coldline, but I wanted to point out the apples vs. oranges difference in one way each does redundancy, or not in the case of Backblaze.
  - brianwski 10y ago
    > That seems acceptable for a consumer backup (not cloud storage) solution. I work at Backblaze, so I'm biased. :-) But the use case is important, meaning I wouldn't group together all "cloud storage solution" as one use case. Backblaze does not have compute at all (like EC2) so Backblaze is a terrible choice for a company that will spend a lot of cycles analyzing the data stored in the cloud or doing compute on the data stored in the cloud. That is a much larger issue than the one data center for that use case. On the other hand, it is my profound belief that for long term durability of data you should have AT LEAST three copies of the data stored by profoundly different vendors. Hopefully different file systems and stored by software written by different programmers so the same bug that affects one copy won't affect the other copies. Hopefully stored at separate physical locations. Put a different way: the only way to get more reliable than data stored at Amazon Glacier is to have one copy in Amazon Glacier, another copy on Google Coldline, and another copy in Backblaze. In that use case, the single data center of Backblaze is obviously a non-issue.

https://www.backblaze.com https://www.backblaze.com

by crudbug 10y ago

https://www.backblaze.com https://www.backblaze.com

deleted 10y ago

[deleted]

hga 10y ago

As far as I can tell, they're still operating out of one data centers, and while they claim it's Sacramento location is outside of earthquake danger zones, I can still see one to the west impacting availability depending on fiber routing, electrical supply, etc. Echoing another comment, I'm not sure if this is a big a danger as a programmer's or operator's potential to wipe out all your data no matter how many datacenters it's located in, but....

ProblemFactory 10y ago
That seems acceptable for a consumer backup (not cloud storage) solution. I have data on my laptop, an external disk that I keep at home, and BackBlaze. The likelihood of all three failing in the same week so that I can't restore from any single copy is low.
- hga 10y ago
  Indeed, and I have seriously considered them for their 71% lower price than AWS Glacier and now Google's Coldline, but I wanted to point out the apples vs. oranges difference in one way each does redundancy, or not in the case of Backblaze.
- brianwski 10y ago
  > That seems acceptable for a consumer backup (not cloud storage) solution. I work at Backblaze, so I'm biased. :-) But the use case is important, meaning I wouldn't group together all "cloud storage solution" as one use case. Backblaze does not have compute at all (like EC2) so Backblaze is a terrible choice for a company that will spend a lot of cycles analyzing the data stored in the cloud or doing compute on the data stored in the cloud. That is a much larger issue than the one data center for that use case. On the other hand, it is my profound belief that for long term durability of data you should have AT LEAST three copies of the data stored by profoundly different vendors. Hopefully different file systems and stored by software written by different programmers so the same bug that affects one copy won't affect the other copies. Hopefully stored at separate physical locations. Put a different way: the only way to get more reliable than data stored at Amazon Glacier is to have one copy in Amazon Glacier, another copy on Google Coldline, and another copy in Backblaze. In that use case, the single data center of Backblaze is obviously a non-issue.