> 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

> 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.