3 ms·

I say this most times I see you advertising and I'll say it again: You really need to work on your pricing to be competitive with things like this. Even with th

by Veratyr 10y ago

I say this most times I see you advertising and I'll say it again: You really need to work on your pricing to be competitive with things like this. Even with the HN discount your service is expensive and even with the Borg/Attic pricing which is cheaper still, your service is 3x more expensive than alternatives like Nearline (aside from bandwidth), which themselves can be used as a backend for Attic (just mount GCS locally). I really like the look of the service but I can't justify paying over 3x for it.

rsync 10y ago
"your service is 3x more expensive than alternatives like Nearline (aside from bandwidth), which themselves can be used as a backend for Attic (just mount GCS locally)." Well, our storage platform is online and random access so it would be inappropriate to compare it to either nearline or glacier. The appropriate comparison is to S3 - or in this case, the multi-regional GCS option that this discussion points to. In that case, our attic/borg pricing is 3 cents as compared to (roughly 3 cents) for s3 and 2 cents for GCS - and that assumes you use no bandwidth. Since we charge nothing for usage/bandwidth, the comparable prices from amazon/google would be slightly higher. It sounds like a steal to me and every day plenty of people agree enough to commence using our services. Also, unrelated, you know you can just drive up to an rsync.net location and get your data - even if the Internet is crippled.[1] [1] http://www.rsync.net/products/oob.html http://www.rsync.net/products/oob.html
- Veratyr 10y ago
  > Well, our storage platform is online and random access so it would be inappropriate to compare it to either nearline or glacier. That would be true but you stated "circa 2016, the cool kids are all backing up to rsync.net with borg", so comparing your service pricing as a backup product to Nearline is appropriate I believe. Don't get me wrong, your service definitely has a lot of good applications and the free bandwidth is quite great but for those of us that just want somewhere to park a whole pile of data we aren't going to touch much, Rsync.net is quite expensive. Also a downside of rsync.net vs. AWS/GCS etc. is that you can't direct users' HTTP requests to rsync.net. That dampens the usefulness of online storage and unlimited bandwidth, since it essentially limits it to servers under our own control. If I could run HTTP off it directly, my feelings would be very very different.
- boulos 10y ago
  I agree that the benefits of "it's ZFS" is an important thing people miss when they say "oh I'll just use GCS or S3". And the bandwidth to get your data back out is absolutely material. Your bundled price is seriously a good deal at lots of points in the option space. But, I would like to quibble with the "online" comment about Nearline or Coldline: there's no access penalty (now). We kind of quietly announced it in June or so, but Kirill the PM linked to it again. I had understood the "default" rsync.net choice to be in a single location, so comparing to our multi-regional (as opposed to Regional, Nearline or Coldline) seems incongruous. Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.

by Veratyr 10y ago

rsync 10y ago

"your service is 3x more expensive than alternatives like Nearline (aside from bandwidth), which themselves can be used as a backend for Attic (just mount GCS locally)." Well, our storage platform is online and random access so it would be inappropriate to compare it to either nearline or glacier. The appropriate comparison is to S3 - or in this case, the multi-regional GCS option that this discussion points to. In that case, our attic/borg pricing is 3 cents as compared to (roughly 3 cents) for s3 and 2 cents for GCS - and that assumes you use no bandwidth. Since we charge nothing for usage/bandwidth, the comparable prices from amazon/google would be slightly higher. It sounds like a steal to me and every day plenty of people agree enough to commence using our services. Also, unrelated, you know you can just drive up to an rsync.net location and get your data - even if the Internet is crippled.[1] [1] http://www.rsync.net/products/oob.html http://www.rsync.net/products/oob.html

Veratyr 10y ago
> Well, our storage platform is online and random access so it would be inappropriate to compare it to either nearline or glacier. That would be true but you stated "circa 2016, the cool kids are all backing up to rsync.net with borg", so comparing your service pricing as a backup product to Nearline is appropriate I believe. Don't get me wrong, your service definitely has a lot of good applications and the free bandwidth is quite great but for those of us that just want somewhere to park a whole pile of data we aren't going to touch much, Rsync.net is quite expensive. Also a downside of rsync.net vs. AWS/GCS etc. is that you can't direct users' HTTP requests to rsync.net. That dampens the usefulness of online storage and unlimited bandwidth, since it essentially limits it to servers under our own control. If I could run HTTP off it directly, my feelings would be very very different.
boulos 10y ago
I agree that the benefits of "it's ZFS" is an important thing people miss when they say "oh I'll just use GCS or S3". And the bandwidth to get your data back out is absolutely material. Your bundled price is seriously a good deal at lots of points in the option space. But, I would like to quibble with the "online" comment about Nearline or Coldline: there's no access penalty (now). We kind of quietly announced it in June or so, but Kirill the PM linked to it again. I had understood the "default" rsync.net choice to be in a single location, so comparing to our multi-regional (as opposed to Regional, Nearline or Coldline) seems incongruous. Disclosure: I work on Google Cloud.