3 ms·
Amazingly expensive though at 25c/GB/m. I pay Backblaze b2 about $1.60 a month for 280GB of photos. A number that doubles every few years. Today that would cos
by oliwarner 10y ago
Amazingly expensive though at 25c/GB/m.
I pay Backblaze b2 about $1.60 a month for 280GB of photos. A number that doubles every few years. Today that would cost me $60 on tarsnap. That's not reasonable.
- tedmiston 9y agoI did the same until Backblaze lost all data from one of my drives, which they didn't alert me about and I discovered abruptly attempting to restore after the physical drive died. Dealing with their customer support is very insecure (sharing your secret in plain text) and they still weren't able to recover the files. I don't see myself using or recommending it to anyone again.
- JohnTHaller 9y agoDid you post a writeup of this somewhere online you can link to?
- tedmiston 9y agoI wrote a draft of it but didn't publish because it just felt like a rage post. I found it difficult to separate the objective events from the frustration of data loss. That said, there probably would be value as a lot of people blindly recommend Backblaze but haven't experienced edge cases like this.
- oliwarner 9y agoI feel for you —losing backup data isn't too bad but not knowing about it is— but I could afford to keep almost 40 separate copies on Backblaze for the same price as one on Tarsnap. I could keep one on B2 and one on S3 and one on Glacier... And still have saved $480 each year over one copy on Tarsnap. It's too expensive.