12 ms·

Wasabi – Simple storage solution

311 points by gglanzani 9y ago

gglanzani 9y ago
Not affiliated, by just found out that's compatible with Arq and when I saw the prices I was stunned.
- sdotsen 9y ago
  Same here though I'm leaning towards backblaze since there's no minimum.
mattl 9y ago
I wonder how this compares to rsync.net, especially with their HN discount and http://rsync.net/products/attic.html http://rsync.net/products/attic.html if you're doing the kind of backups I'd imagine Glacier is used for.
- stevekemp 9y ago
  After reading about https://rsync.net https://rsync.net for years on this site, I signed up last week. Great service, and almost pain-free. I've only bought 100Gb but that's enough for my virtual machines. (Completely replaced the use of https://rsync.io https://rsync.io ;)
  - mattl 9y ago
    You should make rsync.io redirect to rsync.net with your coupon code and get a bunch of storage :)
- Veratyr 9y ago
  Rsync.net has more features but it's also 10x the price, even with the Attic discount. Egress is free on rsync.net but of limited usefulness since the only supported protocol is SSH.
cschmidt 9y ago
> Wasabi storage costs a flat $.0039/GB/Month with a 1 TB minimum usage. so the only "catch" is $3.90 a month minimum?
- psz 9y ago
  Not only. There is also minimum 90-day charge for objects. https://wasabi.com/pricing/pricing-faqs/ https://wasabi.com/pricing/pricing-faqs/
  - cschmidt 9y ago
    According to that, there is an extra "9" they didn't show, so $3.99 rather than $3.90. So then if you deleted your 1TB each month, and uploaded new data, you'd be paying 3 times more due to the 90 day minimum charge, so about $12/month in the worst case.
    - klodolph 9y ago
      That is to be expected for bottom-barrel prices, to make up for the cost of maintenance (GC / compaction / rebalancing / etc of data). They might just wait 90 days before doing the first compaction, or whatever their system does to delete data.
    - Avery3R 9y ago
      They're using 1TB as in 1024GB. 1024*$0.0039 = $3.9936
- sigi45 9y ago
  Traffic is horrible expensive :|
jakozaur 9y ago
Storage is cheap on any cloud, the network egress is expensive. 1. Wasabi: Storage: $.0039/GB/Month Egress: $.04/GB 2. AWS: Storage: $0.023/GB/Month Egress: $.05-.09/GB (even lower if you're big) Sending data one outside of AWS costs equivalent of 2-4 months of storage.
- matt_wulfeck 9y ago
  The benefit of S3 is that traffic is free within the same region. If you're hosting on AWS that alone is going to save you money versus the competitors.
  - IanCal 9y ago
    A less seen cost is for the various operations. Regularly pushing lots of small files on S3 can get expensive. $1/200k files ($0.005 per 1k PUT requests).
    - copperx 9y ago
      Not to mention the minimum file size charge, which I think was a few kb per file in infrequent access S3.
      - IanCal 9y ago
        Thanks, I'd not considered that one before, I'll make sure to keep an eye on that.
      - ascendantlogic 9y ago
        IA is only applicable for items that are 128kb or larger in size. Also Glacier adds 32kb of glacier data to each object as well as 8kb of standard tier storage per object. S3 is really inefficient for huge numbers of small files.
ernsheong 9y ago
There's also B2 (https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html), which is I think the cheapest of them all. UPDATE: Well, egress is cheaper. B2 is $0.005/GB storage with $0.02/GB egress. But one thing to consider is that B2 storage is located within one single datacenter. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated, but am in the process of deciding to use B2.)
- agopaul 9y ago
  I did some research myself to decide which storage solution to use for backups and B2 is the cheapest of all, at least for backups. I hope that Backblaze will also offer some kind of redundance option (replicate customer data in 2+ datacenters).
  - copperx 9y ago
    B2 is awesome for when you have a local backup. For example, B2 is ideal to back up a NAS. I wouldn't want to use it for set-and-forget cold storage, because of the single datacenter problem.
- minxomat 9y ago
  B2 is horribly unstable, has limits left and right and most of all, the latency is horrendous. You will be better off using any standard OpenStack provider. That way you won't have a lock in, and great performance (in my testing). E.g. OpenStack Swift on OVH. Sure it's a tiny bit more expensive. But you get a mature cross-provider API and better performance. Even for huge chunks of cold data, I wouldn't want to use B2.
  - raimue 9y ago
    I am uploading encrypted backups from servers to BackBlaze B2 Cloud Storage using duply/duplicity. This works pretty well for me. Latency is not important for this use case and I have not noticed any limits. There were a few upload failures initially, but I just increased the upload retries, which sufficiently remedied this problem. That it works so well for me might be connected to the fact that their own products are backup solutions. In any case, I am now paying a significantly less monthly fee for B2 than on Amazon S3 before and the setup had a much lower complexity.
fweespeech 9y ago
If the goal is price reduction: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ (S3-comparable performance) $40/year minimum Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0112/month/GB https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/cloud-archive/ https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/cloud-archive/ (archival storage) Incoming/Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0023/month/GB https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing Storage: €0.005/Month No traffic costs (because its archival storage) The main downside is they are located in 1 physical area even tho they are labeled as multiple DCs. But for high traffic uses, honestly, you can just double the storage costs (i.e. OVH CA and OVH France) to get redundancy while saving _massively_ on traffic costs.
- hackerboos 9y ago
  Where did you see the $40 min with OVH?
  - fweespeech 9y ago
    Experience. If you dig into the billing information and/or actually attempt to create a cloud project it'll tell you there is $40/year minimum. On OVH you create an "OpenStack/Cloud" project -> They charge you $40 -> Then you have use of the cloud storage.
    - jo909 9y ago
      It was 10€ in prepaid credit for me just yesterday, Which is valid for 13 months IIRC
      - fweespeech 9y ago
        Ah perhaps it changed then. I opened my account awhile ago via OVH CA in USD.
- bedros 9y ago
  does this work with django storages?
jasonsync 9y ago
Curious .. where (region) is the data stored?
- WasabiRichard 9y ago
  This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi Presently our main data centers are in Massachussetts (home sweet home) and Virginia (similar to that of AWS east). Having our data located here has advantages in the present cloud ecosystem that we are excited to roll our in the months to come.
sjbase 9y ago
Has anyone here done a migration from S3 to Wasabi, and successfully realized the lower total cost Wasabi is claiming?
dutchbrit 9y ago
What payment methods do they accept?
- WasabiRichard 9y ago
  This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi Presently we accept all credit cards (via stripe of course), and are rolling out invoices for ACH / etc soon.
loisaidasam 9y ago
This looks great. Are there any client libraries for access, perhaps similar to AWS's `boto`? Having a hard time finding that on your website ..
- dividuum 9y ago
  Since it claims to be "100% bit compatible with Amazon S3", I would assume that you can use boto if you manually configure their endpoints.
  - loisaidasam 9y ago
    Would be nice to see a note about that somewhere
    - WasabiRichard 9y ago
      This is Richard: a product manager at Wasabi. Yes we work with the boto SDK. you can find all of the tested compatibility our PACT team has done here: https://wasabi.com/help/interop-results/ https://wasabi.com/help/interop-results/
reiichiroh 9y ago
On the same page on HN there's another Wasabi that's a fire alarm for deaf people.
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
- WasabiRichard 9y ago
  This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi sorry to say that we don't also make the fire alarms. That would be cool technology to work on though!
- toyg 9y ago
  And I'm old enough to remember Wasabi as the proprietary vb-to-php compiler that FogCreek developed for a few years. And I think there was something related to OpenBSD or NetBSD, some company called Wasabi System...? It's definitely one of the most common codenames in IT, together with Phoenix, Firebird and Panda (and in the enterprise, all greek/roman gods).
  - bch 9y ago
    NetBSD, and also storage related[0], confusingly enough. Wasabi brought journaling (WAPBL[1]) to NetBSD. [0] http://www.wasabisystems.com/ http://www.wasabisystems.com/ [1] http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?wapbl++NetBSD-current http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?wapbl++NetBSD-current
- dang 9y ago
  Sometimes people make these as copycat posts, which is not the best kind of post, but I figure HN can handle a lot of wasabi.
kevan 9y ago
They're claiming the same 11 9s durability that S3 does. I'd be pretty suspicious of that claim without a track record but it looks like Wasabi's founders come from Carbonite. Bring on the competition, commoditization of fundamental building blocks is great for everyone except people trying to make startup-scale returns on them.
- zzzcpan 9y ago
  Those durability numbers for both Amazon and Wasabi are pure marketing and don't really mean anything even remotely important. Durability of data stored by a single company, even a company like Amazon, is actually very low, you should be scared of how low it really is. You could get kicked out from the service, lose data because of a bug or an operational mistake, be prevented from using the service by your government for political reasons and so on.
  - icedchai 9y ago
    Do you have any evidence for these claims of low durability? (None of those issues, except for bugs in the service, would count against them, by the way.)
    - skuhn 9y ago
      I think factors beyond the storage algorithm are pretty important to consider when thinking about storing data that's important to your business. To your specific point though: 1. Amazon claims 99.999999999% durability of objects over a year. 2. I store 1EB of data with an object size of 4MB for a year (so 250,000,000,000 objects). 3. I can expect to lose 250 objects in a year, or 1GB. Now to my experience: I have stored in excess of that amount of data in S3. I have lost considerably more data -- solely because of data losses internal to S3 -- that these numbers would suggest. It was a tolerable amount of data loss, I didn't curse Amazon's name or swear vengeance, but it was definitely not 1 gig. The standard S3 SLA provides credits only based on uptime. There is no mention of durability whatsoever. That tells you that Amazon is not willing to put their money where there mouth is on their 99.999999999% durability claims. The reality is the number is a design target, not an operational guarantee.
bzz01 9y ago
75MB/5 sec benchmark results (using internal AWS network to pull from S3!) sound dubious. You can get 4Gbps+ down from S3 within the same region in my experience, that's 30x faster than these numbers.
ComputerGuru 9y ago
Does anyone have a suggestion for a cheaper CloudFront, not S3? Preferably an option that can do S3 upstream, and support for signed requests with expiry is a must.
- cobookman 9y ago
  Cloudflare?
  - ComputerGuru 9y ago
    I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion on HN, but I had the misfortune of using CloueFlare when they first started and experienced firsthand how amateurish the team behind it was. I tried them again three years ago and didn't see anything to change my opinion. The security incident last year cemented it for me. Thanks for your suggestion (honestly) but we won't ever be using CloudFlare so long as I have a say in it.
    - foobarbazetc 9y ago
      They've definitely improved since then. You need to be on the $200/month plan and basically turn off the WAF (which is craptastic), then things are pretty good. All software has bugs. They just got unlucky, though their handling of the situation did raise a bunch of red flags.
      - jjeaff 9y ago
        I was considering using cloudflare as a free static asset CDN. On several of the speed test rankings they show cloudflare at or near the top. I also have my dns with them on the free tier. But I am not running my regular traffic through their Network. I just plan to create a subdomain and run js, css, and images through it. Would this not be recommended? Free CDN does seem too good to be true.
        detaro 9y ago
foofoofoofoofoo 9y ago
For me, when choosing an object storage service, the most important question is WHERE is my data is stored. If I cannot choose where my data is stored, I won't use the service. Why? Because my clients will ask me the same question for their audits.
ricardobeat 9y ago
Lacking comparison with their closest competitor B2 ($0.005/GB, cheaper outbound at $0.02/GB). Also no information on DC location and zones.
- copperx 9y ago
  They claim to have multiple data centers. It sounds fishy to me. I would like to see some pics / info af their setup before I trust them with 1 byte of my data.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    My guess is that their data centers look exactly like this https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/
jdwyah 9y ago
Worth noting the opportunity cost of not being in S3. Something like Athena won't be yours for the asking. It's been saving my butt lately. Nice to be able to actually see what's in your S3 sometimes :) http://blog.ratelim.it/blog/log-aggregation-at-scale-for-cheap-with-aws-athena-and-kinesis-firehose http://blog.ratelim.it/blog/log-aggregation-at-scale-for-che...
- deleted 9y ago
  [deleted]
knobbytires 9y ago
Some quick observations: - Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims. - They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET and DELETE did work but that is only 3 of 100’s of API’s. - Their durability claims are highly suspect. I would want to see a white paper breaking this down. - Their first round was debt financing. Why this business model does’t work... Most people don’t use S3 alone. S3 is a source for other AWS services. That being said, Wasabi becomes a more expensive option as you have a 4 cent egress fee to access data from the rest of your AWS infrastructure. The only place Wasabi becomes cheaper is for those using S3 direct/alone which is a very small subset of S3 usage. AWS is very open about this in white papers, conferences, tech talks, etc. Wasabi is an economy at scale play that cast way too far a net. There is opportunity in specific vertical markets to sell a solution (object paired with compute) but a pure S3 endpoint will never take substantial marketshare away from AWS.
- panarky 9y ago
  Yes, it's hard to find use cases where Wasabi storage could compete without compute. But S3 originally launched by itself, before EC2. If Wasabi adds a Lambda-like serverless compute layer that could be powerful.
  - sigi45 9y ago
    There would be still a lot of tooling needed around just lambda like serverless compute layer.
  - marcusr 9y ago
    It would be a great destination for cloud backup, where one of the concerns is loss of all your backed up data due to malicious action - look at the trouble the hackers had to go to in Mr Robot to take out their offsite tape backups. I'd be more concerned though with the durability of the company rather than their disk systems over the long term though.
throwaway2016a 9y ago
> Wasabi is built to be 100% AWS S3 bit-compatible (same AWS API constructs for storage & identity management). No need to change your S3-compatible application when using Wasabi I often wonder how this works. With the whole Sun lawsuit with Google over the Java API making a clone of another platforms API sounds dangerous. I'm curious what HN thinks. I've wanted to have a "compatibility layer" that mimics my competitors APIs but have been scared of the possible repercussions.
- fasteo 9y ago
  This. Would love to hear more about this.
  - hedora 9y ago
    You can't copyright a softwarw API in the US because they are considered purely functional (in the mechanical sense). Take flathead screwdrivers as an example. You can't copyright the dimensions of the blade head, since they're just the dimensions of the screw slot, and the only thing the copyright does is harm interoperability between screws and screwdrivers. You can copyright some other aspects of the screwdriver design, and if screwdrivers were a new thing, you could patent the idea of a screwdriver. This is why the Java case hinged on a former sun employee literally cutting and pasting method implementations he wrote at Sun into Android's implementation while he worked at google. /double-face-palm
- icedchai 9y ago
  It wouldn't keep me up at night. Just do it.
- pella 9y ago
  Minio also has a S3 "compatibility layer" see: https://minio.io/ https://minio.io/ "implements Amazon S3 v4 APIs. Minio also includes client SDKs and a console utility."
  - the_common_man 9y ago
    http://pithos.io/ http://pithos.io/
squid3 9y ago
There is also NodeChef object storage. NodeChef charges only by the storage size of your instance. No Data transfer charges. No additional charges for PUT, GET, COPY, or other operations. https://www.nodechef.com/s3-compatible-object-storage https://www.nodechef.com/s3-compatible-object-storage
sreitshamer 9y ago
We just added Wasabi as a destination option in Arq Backup. Seems to do that job well.
rdtsc 9y ago
LeoFS: A stable and scalable S3 clone with NFS support? That you can host on your own infrastructure https://leo-project.net/leofs/ https://leo-project.net/leofs/
- rdtsc 9y ago
  Well they edited the title so this isn't as tongue and cheek as it was meant to be. The original title was something like: "Wasabi - a faster, better clone of S3?" That's why I see others quote the original in the reply.
caleblloyd 9y ago
From the FAQ: > 7. Your website indicates $.0039 per GB per month but the pricing comparison on the website indicates 1 TB is priced at $3.99 / month (instead of $3.90 / month for 1 TB). Why is that? > The Wasabi monthly price is $.0039 GB / month. Given that there are 1024 GB in 1 TB (not 1000 GB), the price for 1 TB is $.0039 * 1024 or $3.99 per 1 TB per month. Come on you are a digital storage company let's call things what they are. There are 1000 GB in a TB. There are 1024 GiB in a TiB.
demas1252 9y ago
If I am using Arq, will I have additional costs except '$.0039 per GB per month'?
bogomipz 9y ago
The article states: "Wasabi’s durability is 11 x 9s, the same as Amazon S3. To put that in context, if you stored 1 million 1 GB files in Wasabi, you would expect on average to lose one file every 659,000 years" Can someone walk me through the math here? I specifically curious about why the size of the file being 1 GB is relevant to the calculation.
- CobrastanJorji 9y ago
  It doesn't matter. This is marketing fluff. What companies like Amazon do is count how many hard drives would need to simultaneously fail to lose data, calculate the odds of a hard drive losing data, and then multiplying. This gets you to 11 9's. In practice, this is almost certainly not going to be why you lose data. That will be because of a chain of human errors, or a code bug, or because the user accidentally deleted the data, or because earthquakes destroyed your data centers. I don't know anything about Wasabi other than what's on their web page, but I half suspect that what they did was look at Amazon's durability guarantee and then write that number down as their durability guarantee.
  - jjeaff 9y ago
    Yes, I think is disingenuous to call it "data" durability. "disk" durability would be more accurate.
thoughtpalette 9y ago
Would love to hear from someones perspective whom actually moved current infrastructure over to this provider. Would love a write-up and pros-cons after transitioning.
ProAm 9y ago
Isn't Wasabi a programming language from Fog Creek Software?
- sp332 9y ago
  It was an in-house compiler that they're not using anymore. https://blog.fogcreek.com/killing-off-wasabi-part-1/ https://blog.fogcreek.com/killing-off-wasabi-part-1/
tomovo 9y ago
Wouldn't it be funny if this was just a market test/exercise, using actual S3 as a backend, just to see if it gets any traction before building own HW/SW solution?
- jrs95 9y ago
  Kind of like how most wasabi in the U.S. isn't really wasabi, it's just horseradish? lol
  - type0 9y ago
    Well if this service were called horseradish I would definitely sign up.
  - cthalupa 9y ago
    Not just in the US. Real wasabi is very expensive. Even in Japan, unless you're seeing them grate it for you at the table, it's still just green horseradish. (Source: Posting this from Meguro-ku in Tokyo ;) )
- dawnerd 9y ago
  Could explain the 1tb minimum. Hoping most people don't get close to it.
- copperx 9y ago
  That's what I thought, given that I didn't see any datacenter photos, tech blog, setup, and that their team is so goddamn small. Such a startup would require a lot of tech infrastructure and know-how, and their page http://www.wasabisys.com http://www.wasabisys.com isn't even configured. It feels like Wasabi is startup with no physical product, but I might be wrong.
- jbkkd 9y ago
  Their IP addresses belong to a company named PSI net: ~ dig +short console.wasabisys.com 38.27.106.13 38.27.106.12 38.27.106.11 NetRange: 38.0.0.0 - 38.255.255.255 CIDR: 38.0.0.0/8 NetName: COGENT-A NetHandle: NET-38-0-0-0-1 Parent: () NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: AS174 Organization: PSINet, Inc. (PSI) RegDate: 1991-04-16 Updated: 2011-05-20 Comment: Reassignment information for this block can be found at Comment: rwhois.cogentco.com 4321 Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-38-0-0-0-1 There's not much to be found by PSINet or Cogent who own them, but they don't seem to offer hosting services. The only relevant piece of information that I could find as to what PSINet do these days is this one: https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/lots-of-weird-traffic-from-psinet-inc-increasing-bounce-rate.2478101/ https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/lots-of-weird-traffi... It does make it sound as if it is a market test, or that PSINet have developed large scale hosting capabilities in the last few years. // Edit In addition, they use the exact same terminology Amazon uses in their console file, including ARN and two policies named after S3: AmazonS3FullAccess AmazonS3ReadOnlyAccess The policy syntax looks familiar to those coming from S3 as well.
mv4 9y ago
I am curious what their strategy is. Cloud storage by itself (just like delivery) is a commodity, and if you look at the pricing trends per GB, it's a race to the bottom (will be interesting to see which CDN decides to become "free" first). So, without a suite of offerings a la AWS - how will they make money in this market?
- WasabiRichard 9y ago
  This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi We agree with you exactly: storage should be a commodity. The goal of making something like Wasabi is to be able to do cloud storage of datasets that were too large to be financially feasible before. Allowing data on the Petabyte and Exabyte scale to be easily accessible between institutions could be revolutionary and we are excited to be on the forefront.
  - mv4 9y ago
    Thank you.
mingabunga 9y ago
Just came here to say I think the design of the website looks great, colors, spacing, type etc.
yuvadam 9y ago
Depending on your access patterns, Backblaze B2 might be cheaper at $0.005/GB stored and $0.02/GB downloaded.
CobrastanJorji 9y ago
CTRL+F "availability". 0 results found.
Waterluvian 9y ago
Am I doing the math wrong or is this $4/mo for me to dump 1TB of copies of my family albums and whatnot into for long term cold storage?
- moxious 9y ago
  Sounds right if they stick around long enough for you to get your content back in a few years. Don't forget to price in that risk.
- WasabiRichard 9y ago
  Im a product manager at Wasabi and your math is accurate! Of note we are not cold storage: you can get your data back instantly whenever you want it.
- PhantomGremlin 9y ago
  Can you make do with storing only 50 GB? That's $0.99/month from Apple. Can you make do with storing only 200 GB? That's $2.99/month from Apple. No extra charge to get your data out. The point is that for individuals it might make more sense to consider "friendlier" storage options. These types of services don't seem to be tailored to storing "family albums". https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201238 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201238
  - copperx 9y ago
    Agreed. But I wouldn't trust Apple with my data; iCloud has lost some of my iWork files and has failed to sync important Apple Notes when changing phones. This was during the start of iCloud, so reliability might be better now.
Piccollo 9y ago
BUT WHERE IS THE SUSHI?
freedomben 9y ago
Is there a web UI?
mbleigh 9y ago
I'm surprised the FAQ doesn't answer the question that immediately came to mind: why should I risk my data with an untested startup when the only benefit is claimed performance/price? Or my second question: wait, doesn't this sound an awful lot like Pied Piper's product from the newest season of Silicon Valley?
- whalesalad 9y ago
  Exactly. Performance means nothing when the company runs out of funding and goes belly up... along with all your data.
tarikozket 9y ago
Neat job, keep up the great work! There is also OVH as competitor. Their panel and documentation is not the best but once you integrate, it works like a charm and I guess they are the cheapest object storage service out there in the market: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Why would you say they are the cheapest object storage when it is significantly more than the very service you responded to? Not to mention b2 and several others that are cheaper.
PaulRobinson 9y ago
The biggest reason why I use S3 is not price or performance. Competing with them on price or performance is not going to work. I use S3 because of convenience. Build something more convenient, I'll switch.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  If it is an S3 API clone, doesn't that make it equally convenient?
inertial 9y ago
> 12. How reliable is Wasabi? > The Wasabi infrastructure has been built using industry best practices for redundancy in data center design. Sounds too generic. Maybe put in something concrete & technical.
prirun 9y ago
They have a gimmick in their pricing: 90-day minimum storage. So for objects that don't have 90-day lifetimes, you can end up paying WAY more than S3. S3 IA has a 30-day minimum, like Google Nearline, and Google Coldline is 90-day minimum. These make it very hard to predict and control pricing. Backblaze B2 may not be as high performance, but their pricing is very low AND very predictable. No gimmicks. I've received many HashBackup customer emails mentioning that they use B2 and have never received complaints about their service.

311 points by gglanzani 9y ago

gglanzani 9y ago

Not affiliated, by just found out that's compatible with Arq and when I saw the prices I was stunned.

sdotsen 9y ago
Same here though I'm leaning towards backblaze since there's no minimum.

mattl 9y ago

I wonder how this compares to rsync.net, especially with their HN discount and http://rsync.net/products/attic.html http://rsync.net/products/attic.html if you're doing the kind of backups I'd imagine Glacier is used for.

stevekemp 9y ago
After reading about https://rsync.net https://rsync.net for years on this site, I signed up last week. Great service, and almost pain-free. I've only bought 100Gb but that's enough for my virtual machines. (Completely replaced the use of https://rsync.io https://rsync.io ;)
- mattl 9y ago
  You should make rsync.io redirect to rsync.net with your coupon code and get a bunch of storage :)
Veratyr 9y ago
Rsync.net has more features but it's also 10x the price, even with the Attic discount. Egress is free on rsync.net but of limited usefulness since the only supported protocol is SSH.

cschmidt 9y ago

> Wasabi storage costs a flat $.0039/GB/Month with a 1 TB minimum usage. so the only "catch" is $3.90 a month minimum?

psz 9y ago
Not only. There is also minimum 90-day charge for objects. https://wasabi.com/pricing/pricing-faqs/ https://wasabi.com/pricing/pricing-faqs/
- cschmidt 9y ago
  According to that, there is an extra "9" they didn't show, so $3.99 rather than $3.90. So then if you deleted your 1TB each month, and uploaded new data, you'd be paying 3 times more due to the 90 day minimum charge, so about $12/month in the worst case.
  - klodolph 9y ago
    That is to be expected for bottom-barrel prices, to make up for the cost of maintenance (GC / compaction / rebalancing / etc of data). They might just wait 90 days before doing the first compaction, or whatever their system does to delete data.
  - Avery3R 9y ago
    They're using 1TB as in 1024GB. 1024*$0.0039 = $3.9936
sigi45 9y ago
Traffic is horrible expensive :|

jakozaur 9y ago

Storage is cheap on any cloud, the network egress is expensive. 1. Wasabi: Storage: $.0039/GB/Month Egress: $.04/GB 2. AWS: Storage: $0.023/GB/Month Egress: $.05-.09/GB (even lower if you're big) Sending data one outside of AWS costs equivalent of 2-4 months of storage.

matt_wulfeck 9y ago
The benefit of S3 is that traffic is free within the same region. If you're hosting on AWS that alone is going to save you money versus the competitors.
- IanCal 9y ago
  A less seen cost is for the various operations. Regularly pushing lots of small files on S3 can get expensive. $1/200k files ($0.005 per 1k PUT requests).
  - copperx 9y ago
    Not to mention the minimum file size charge, which I think was a few kb per file in infrequent access S3.
    - IanCal 9y ago
      Thanks, I'd not considered that one before, I'll make sure to keep an eye on that.
    - ascendantlogic 9y ago
      IA is only applicable for items that are 128kb or larger in size. Also Glacier adds 32kb of glacier data to each object as well as 8kb of standard tier storage per object. S3 is really inefficient for huge numbers of small files.

ernsheong 9y ago

There's also B2 (https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html), which is I think the cheapest of them all. UPDATE: Well, egress is cheaper. B2 is $0.005/GB storage with $0.02/GB egress. But one thing to consider is that B2 storage is located within one single datacenter. (Disclaimer: I am not affiliated, but am in the process of deciding to use B2.)

agopaul 9y ago
I did some research myself to decide which storage solution to use for backups and B2 is the cheapest of all, at least for backups. I hope that Backblaze will also offer some kind of redundance option (replicate customer data in 2+ datacenters).
- copperx 9y ago
  B2 is awesome for when you have a local backup. For example, B2 is ideal to back up a NAS. I wouldn't want to use it for set-and-forget cold storage, because of the single datacenter problem.
minxomat 9y ago
B2 is horribly unstable, has limits left and right and most of all, the latency is horrendous. You will be better off using any standard OpenStack provider. That way you won't have a lock in, and great performance (in my testing). E.g. OpenStack Swift on OVH. Sure it's a tiny bit more expensive. But you get a mature cross-provider API and better performance. Even for huge chunks of cold data, I wouldn't want to use B2.
- raimue 9y ago
  I am uploading encrypted backups from servers to BackBlaze B2 Cloud Storage using duply/duplicity. This works pretty well for me. Latency is not important for this use case and I have not noticed any limits. There were a few upload failures initially, but I just increased the upload retries, which sufficiently remedied this problem. That it works so well for me might be connected to the fact that their own products are backup solutions. In any case, I am now paying a significantly less monthly fee for B2 than on Amazon S3 before and the setup had a much lower complexity.

fweespeech 9y ago

If the goal is price reduction: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ (S3-comparable performance) $40/year minimum Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0112/month/GB https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/cloud-archive/ https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/cloud-archive/ (archival storage) Incoming/Outgoing traffic: $0.011/GB Storage: $0.0023/month/GB https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing https://www.online.net/en/c14#pricing Storage: €0.005/Month No traffic costs (because its archival storage) The main downside is they are located in 1 physical area even tho they are labeled as multiple DCs. But for high traffic uses, honestly, you can just double the storage costs (i.e. OVH CA and OVH France) to get redundancy while saving _massively_ on traffic costs.

hackerboos 9y ago
Where did you see the $40 min with OVH?
- fweespeech 9y ago
  Experience. If you dig into the billing information and/or actually attempt to create a cloud project it'll tell you there is $40/year minimum. On OVH you create an "OpenStack/Cloud" project -> They charge you $40 -> Then you have use of the cloud storage.
  - jo909 9y ago
    It was 10€ in prepaid credit for me just yesterday, Which is valid for 13 months IIRC
    - fweespeech 9y ago
      Ah perhaps it changed then. I opened my account awhile ago via OVH CA in USD.
bedros 9y ago
does this work with django storages?

jasonsync 9y ago

Curious .. where (region) is the data stored?

WasabiRichard 9y ago
This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi Presently our main data centers are in Massachussetts (home sweet home) and Virginia (similar to that of AWS east). Having our data located here has advantages in the present cloud ecosystem that we are excited to roll our in the months to come.

sjbase 9y ago

Has anyone here done a migration from S3 to Wasabi, and successfully realized the lower total cost Wasabi is claiming?

dutchbrit 9y ago

What payment methods do they accept?

WasabiRichard 9y ago
This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi Presently we accept all credit cards (via stripe of course), and are rolling out invoices for ACH / etc soon.

loisaidasam 9y ago

This looks great. Are there any client libraries for access, perhaps similar to AWS's `boto`? Having a hard time finding that on your website ..

dividuum 9y ago
Since it claims to be "100% bit compatible with Amazon S3", I would assume that you can use boto if you manually configure their endpoints.
- loisaidasam 9y ago
  Would be nice to see a note about that somewhere
  - WasabiRichard 9y ago
    This is Richard: a product manager at Wasabi. Yes we work with the boto SDK. you can find all of the tested compatibility our PACT team has done here: https://wasabi.com/help/interop-results/ https://wasabi.com/help/interop-results/

reiichiroh 9y ago

On the same page on HN there's another Wasabi that's a fire alarm for deaf people.

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]
WasabiRichard 9y ago
This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi sorry to say that we don't also make the fire alarms. That would be cool technology to work on though!
toyg 9y ago
And I'm old enough to remember Wasabi as the proprietary vb-to-php compiler that FogCreek developed for a few years. And I think there was something related to OpenBSD or NetBSD, some company called Wasabi System...? It's definitely one of the most common codenames in IT, together with Phoenix, Firebird and Panda (and in the enterprise, all greek/roman gods).
- bch 9y ago
  NetBSD, and also storage related[0], confusingly enough. Wasabi brought journaling (WAPBL[1]) to NetBSD. [0] http://www.wasabisystems.com/ http://www.wasabisystems.com/ [1] http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?wapbl++NetBSD-current http://netbsd.gw.com/cgi-bin/man-cgi?wapbl++NetBSD-current
dang 9y ago
Sometimes people make these as copycat posts, which is not the best kind of post, but I figure HN can handle a lot of wasabi.

kevan 9y ago

They're claiming the same 11 9s durability that S3 does. I'd be pretty suspicious of that claim without a track record but it looks like Wasabi's founders come from Carbonite. Bring on the competition, commoditization of fundamental building blocks is great for everyone except people trying to make startup-scale returns on them.

zzzcpan 9y ago
Those durability numbers for both Amazon and Wasabi are pure marketing and don't really mean anything even remotely important. Durability of data stored by a single company, even a company like Amazon, is actually very low, you should be scared of how low it really is. You could get kicked out from the service, lose data because of a bug or an operational mistake, be prevented from using the service by your government for political reasons and so on.
- icedchai 9y ago
  Do you have any evidence for these claims of low durability? (None of those issues, except for bugs in the service, would count against them, by the way.)
  - skuhn 9y ago
    I think factors beyond the storage algorithm are pretty important to consider when thinking about storing data that's important to your business. To your specific point though: 1. Amazon claims 99.999999999% durability of objects over a year. 2. I store 1EB of data with an object size of 4MB for a year (so 250,000,000,000 objects). 3. I can expect to lose 250 objects in a year, or 1GB. Now to my experience: I have stored in excess of that amount of data in S3. I have lost considerably more data -- solely because of data losses internal to S3 -- that these numbers would suggest. It was a tolerable amount of data loss, I didn't curse Amazon's name or swear vengeance, but it was definitely not 1 gig. The standard S3 SLA provides credits only based on uptime. There is no mention of durability whatsoever. That tells you that Amazon is not willing to put their money where there mouth is on their 99.999999999% durability claims. The reality is the number is a design target, not an operational guarantee.

bzz01 9y ago

75MB/5 sec benchmark results (using internal AWS network to pull from S3!) sound dubious. You can get 4Gbps+ down from S3 within the same region in my experience, that's 30x faster than these numbers.

ComputerGuru 9y ago

Does anyone have a suggestion for a cheaper CloudFront, not S3? Preferably an option that can do S3 upstream, and support for signed requests with expiry is a must.

cobookman 9y ago
Cloudflare?
- ComputerGuru 9y ago
  I know this isn't going to be a popular opinion on HN, but I had the misfortune of using CloueFlare when they first started and experienced firsthand how amateurish the team behind it was. I tried them again three years ago and didn't see anything to change my opinion. The security incident last year cemented it for me. Thanks for your suggestion (honestly) but we won't ever be using CloudFlare so long as I have a say in it.
  - foobarbazetc 9y ago
    They've definitely improved since then. You need to be on the $200/month plan and basically turn off the WAF (which is craptastic), then things are pretty good. All software has bugs. They just got unlucky, though their handling of the situation did raise a bunch of red flags.
    - jjeaff 9y ago
      I was considering using cloudflare as a free static asset CDN. On several of the speed test rankings they show cloudflare at or near the top. I also have my dns with them on the free tier. But I am not running my regular traffic through their Network. I just plan to create a subdomain and run js, css, and images through it. Would this not be recommended? Free CDN does seem too good to be true.
      - detaro 9y ago

foofoofoofoofoo 9y ago

For me, when choosing an object storage service, the most important question is WHERE is my data is stored. If I cannot choose where my data is stored, I won't use the service. Why? Because my clients will ask me the same question for their audits.

ricardobeat 9y ago

Lacking comparison with their closest competitor B2 ($0.005/GB, cheaper outbound at $0.02/GB). Also no information on DC location and zones.

copperx 9y ago
They claim to have multiple data centers. It sounds fishy to me. I would like to see some pics / info af their setup before I trust them with 1 byte of my data.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  My guess is that their data centers look exactly like this https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/ https://aws.amazon.com/about-aws/global-infrastructure/

jdwyah 9y ago

Worth noting the opportunity cost of not being in S3. Something like Athena won't be yours for the asking. It's been saving my butt lately. Nice to be able to actually see what's in your S3 sometimes :) http://blog.ratelim.it/blog/log-aggregation-at-scale-for-cheap-with-aws-athena-and-kinesis-firehose http://blog.ratelim.it/blog/log-aggregation-at-scale-for-che...

deleted 9y ago
[deleted]

knobbytires 9y ago

Some quick observations: - Their performance claims are incredibly biased. Amazon S3 has far better write performance than their claims. - They claim 100% S3 compatibility but it fails a large number of API calls using Ceph’s s3-test. I didn’t dig into this too far but they do claim “No need to change your S3-compatible application” so changing my endpoint + credentials should have worked. To their credit - PUT, GET and DELETE did work but that is only 3 of 100’s of API’s. - Their durability claims are highly suspect. I would want to see a white paper breaking this down. - Their first round was debt financing. Why this business model does’t work... Most people don’t use S3 alone. S3 is a source for other AWS services. That being said, Wasabi becomes a more expensive option as you have a 4 cent egress fee to access data from the rest of your AWS infrastructure. The only place Wasabi becomes cheaper is for those using S3 direct/alone which is a very small subset of S3 usage. AWS is very open about this in white papers, conferences, tech talks, etc. Wasabi is an economy at scale play that cast way too far a net. There is opportunity in specific vertical markets to sell a solution (object paired with compute) but a pure S3 endpoint will never take substantial marketshare away from AWS.

panarky 9y ago
Yes, it's hard to find use cases where Wasabi storage could compete without compute. But S3 originally launched by itself, before EC2. If Wasabi adds a Lambda-like serverless compute layer that could be powerful.
- sigi45 9y ago
  There would be still a lot of tooling needed around just lambda like serverless compute layer.
- marcusr 9y ago
  It would be a great destination for cloud backup, where one of the concerns is loss of all your backed up data due to malicious action - look at the trouble the hackers had to go to in Mr Robot to take out their offsite tape backups. I'd be more concerned though with the durability of the company rather than their disk systems over the long term though.

throwaway2016a 9y ago

> Wasabi is built to be 100% AWS S3 bit-compatible (same AWS API constructs for storage & identity management). No need to change your S3-compatible application when using Wasabi I often wonder how this works. With the whole Sun lawsuit with Google over the Java API making a clone of another platforms API sounds dangerous. I'm curious what HN thinks. I've wanted to have a "compatibility layer" that mimics my competitors APIs but have been scared of the possible repercussions.

fasteo 9y ago
This. Would love to hear more about this.
- hedora 9y ago
  You can't copyright a softwarw API in the US because they are considered purely functional (in the mechanical sense). Take flathead screwdrivers as an example. You can't copyright the dimensions of the blade head, since they're just the dimensions of the screw slot, and the only thing the copyright does is harm interoperability between screws and screwdrivers. You can copyright some other aspects of the screwdriver design, and if screwdrivers were a new thing, you could patent the idea of a screwdriver. This is why the Java case hinged on a former sun employee literally cutting and pasting method implementations he wrote at Sun into Android's implementation while he worked at google. /double-face-palm
icedchai 9y ago
It wouldn't keep me up at night. Just do it.
pella 9y ago
Minio also has a S3 "compatibility layer" see: https://minio.io/ https://minio.io/ "implements Amazon S3 v4 APIs. Minio also includes client SDKs and a console utility."
- the_common_man 9y ago
  http://pithos.io/ http://pithos.io/

squid3 9y ago

There is also NodeChef object storage. NodeChef charges only by the storage size of your instance. No Data transfer charges. No additional charges for PUT, GET, COPY, or other operations. https://www.nodechef.com/s3-compatible-object-storage https://www.nodechef.com/s3-compatible-object-storage

sreitshamer 9y ago

We just added Wasabi as a destination option in Arq Backup. Seems to do that job well.

rdtsc 9y ago

LeoFS: A stable and scalable S3 clone with NFS support? That you can host on your own infrastructure https://leo-project.net/leofs/ https://leo-project.net/leofs/

rdtsc 9y ago
Well they edited the title so this isn't as tongue and cheek as it was meant to be. The original title was something like: "Wasabi - a faster, better clone of S3?" That's why I see others quote the original in the reply.

caleblloyd 9y ago

From the FAQ: > 7. Your website indicates $.0039 per GB per month but the pricing comparison on the website indicates 1 TB is priced at $3.99 / month (instead of $3.90 / month for 1 TB). Why is that? > The Wasabi monthly price is $.0039 GB / month. Given that there are 1024 GB in 1 TB (not 1000 GB), the price for 1 TB is $.0039 * 1024 or $3.99 per 1 TB per month. Come on you are a digital storage company let's call things what they are. There are 1000 GB in a TB. There are 1024 GiB in a TiB.

demas1252 9y ago

If I am using Arq, will I have additional costs except '$.0039 per GB per month'?

bogomipz 9y ago

The article states: "Wasabi’s durability is 11 x 9s, the same as Amazon S3. To put that in context, if you stored 1 million 1 GB files in Wasabi, you would expect on average to lose one file every 659,000 years" Can someone walk me through the math here? I specifically curious about why the size of the file being 1 GB is relevant to the calculation.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago
It doesn't matter. This is marketing fluff. What companies like Amazon do is count how many hard drives would need to simultaneously fail to lose data, calculate the odds of a hard drive losing data, and then multiplying. This gets you to 11 9's. In practice, this is almost certainly not going to be why you lose data. That will be because of a chain of human errors, or a code bug, or because the user accidentally deleted the data, or because earthquakes destroyed your data centers. I don't know anything about Wasabi other than what's on their web page, but I half suspect that what they did was look at Amazon's durability guarantee and then write that number down as their durability guarantee.
- jjeaff 9y ago
  Yes, I think is disingenuous to call it "data" durability. "disk" durability would be more accurate.

thoughtpalette 9y ago

Would love to hear from someones perspective whom actually moved current infrastructure over to this provider. Would love a write-up and pros-cons after transitioning.

ProAm 9y ago

Isn't Wasabi a programming language from Fog Creek Software?

sp332 9y ago
It was an in-house compiler that they're not using anymore. https://blog.fogcreek.com/killing-off-wasabi-part-1/ https://blog.fogcreek.com/killing-off-wasabi-part-1/

tomovo 9y ago

Wouldn't it be funny if this was just a market test/exercise, using actual S3 as a backend, just to see if it gets any traction before building own HW/SW solution?

jrs95 9y ago
Kind of like how most wasabi in the U.S. isn't really wasabi, it's just horseradish? lol
- type0 9y ago
  Well if this service were called horseradish I would definitely sign up.
- cthalupa 9y ago
  Not just in the US. Real wasabi is very expensive. Even in Japan, unless you're seeing them grate it for you at the table, it's still just green horseradish. (Source: Posting this from Meguro-ku in Tokyo ;) )
dawnerd 9y ago
Could explain the 1tb minimum. Hoping most people don't get close to it.
copperx 9y ago
That's what I thought, given that I didn't see any datacenter photos, tech blog, setup, and that their team is so goddamn small. Such a startup would require a lot of tech infrastructure and know-how, and their page http://www.wasabisys.com http://www.wasabisys.com isn't even configured. It feels like Wasabi is startup with no physical product, but I might be wrong.
jbkkd 9y ago
Their IP addresses belong to a company named PSI net: ~ dig +short console.wasabisys.com 38.27.106.13 38.27.106.12 38.27.106.11 NetRange: 38.0.0.0 - 38.255.255.255 CIDR: 38.0.0.0/8 NetName: COGENT-A NetHandle: NET-38-0-0-0-1 Parent: () NetType: Direct Allocation OriginAS: AS174 Organization: PSINet, Inc. (PSI) RegDate: 1991-04-16 Updated: 2011-05-20 Comment: Reassignment information for this block can be found at Comment: rwhois.cogentco.com 4321 Ref: https://whois.arin.net/rest/net/NET-38-0-0-0-1 There's not much to be found by PSINet or Cogent who own them, but they don't seem to offer hosting services. The only relevant piece of information that I could find as to what PSINet do these days is this one: https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/lots-of-weird-traffic-from-psinet-inc-increasing-bounce-rate.2478101/ https://forums.digitalpoint.com/threads/lots-of-weird-traffi... It does make it sound as if it is a market test, or that PSINet have developed large scale hosting capabilities in the last few years. // Edit In addition, they use the exact same terminology Amazon uses in their console file, including ARN and two policies named after S3: AmazonS3FullAccess AmazonS3ReadOnlyAccess The policy syntax looks familiar to those coming from S3 as well.

mv4 9y ago

I am curious what their strategy is. Cloud storage by itself (just like delivery) is a commodity, and if you look at the pricing trends per GB, it's a race to the bottom (will be interesting to see which CDN decides to become "free" first). So, without a suite of offerings a la AWS - how will they make money in this market?

WasabiRichard 9y ago
This is Richard: a product manager with Wasabi We agree with you exactly: storage should be a commodity. The goal of making something like Wasabi is to be able to do cloud storage of datasets that were too large to be financially feasible before. Allowing data on the Petabyte and Exabyte scale to be easily accessible between institutions could be revolutionary and we are excited to be on the forefront.
- mv4 9y ago
  Thank you.

mingabunga 9y ago

Just came here to say I think the design of the website looks great, colors, spacing, type etc.

yuvadam 9y ago

Depending on your access patterns, Backblaze B2 might be cheaper at $0.005/GB stored and $0.02/GB downloaded.

CobrastanJorji 9y ago

CTRL+F "availability". 0 results found.

Waterluvian 9y ago

Am I doing the math wrong or is this $4/mo for me to dump 1TB of copies of my family albums and whatnot into for long term cold storage?

moxious 9y ago
Sounds right if they stick around long enough for you to get your content back in a few years. Don't forget to price in that risk.
WasabiRichard 9y ago
Im a product manager at Wasabi and your math is accurate! Of note we are not cold storage: you can get your data back instantly whenever you want it.
PhantomGremlin 9y ago
Can you make do with storing only 50 GB? That's $0.99/month from Apple. Can you make do with storing only 200 GB? That's $2.99/month from Apple. No extra charge to get your data out. The point is that for individuals it might make more sense to consider "friendlier" storage options. These types of services don't seem to be tailored to storing "family albums". https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201238 https://support.apple.com/en-us/HT201238
- copperx 9y ago
  Agreed. But I wouldn't trust Apple with my data; iCloud has lost some of my iWork files and has failed to sync important Apple Notes when changing phones. This was during the start of iCloud, so reliability might be better now.

Piccollo 9y ago

BUT WHERE IS THE SUSHI?

freedomben 9y ago

Is there a web UI?

mbleigh 9y ago

I'm surprised the FAQ doesn't answer the question that immediately came to mind: why should I risk my data with an untested startup when the only benefit is claimed performance/price? Or my second question: wait, doesn't this sound an awful lot like Pied Piper's product from the newest season of Silicon Valley?

whalesalad 9y ago
Exactly. Performance means nothing when the company runs out of funding and goes belly up... along with all your data.

tarikozket 9y ago

Neat job, keep up the great work! There is also OVH as competitor. Their panel and documentation is not the best but once you integrate, it works like a charm and I guess they are the cheapest object storage service out there in the market: https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/ https://www.ovh.com/us/public-cloud/storage/object-storage/

jjeaff 9y ago
Why would you say they are the cheapest object storage when it is significantly more than the very service you responded to? Not to mention b2 and several others that are cheaper.

PaulRobinson 9y ago

The biggest reason why I use S3 is not price or performance. Competing with them on price or performance is not going to work. I use S3 because of convenience. Build something more convenient, I'll switch.

jjeaff 9y ago
If it is an S3 API clone, doesn't that make it equally convenient?

inertial 9y ago

> 12. How reliable is Wasabi? > The Wasabi infrastructure has been built using industry best practices for redundancy in data center design. Sounds too generic. Maybe put in something concrete & technical.

prirun 9y ago

They have a gimmick in their pricing: 90-day minimum storage. So for objects that don't have 90-day lifetimes, you can end up paying WAY more than S3. S3 IA has a 30-day minimum, like Google Nearline, and Google Coldline is 90-day minimum. These make it very hard to predict and control pricing. Backblaze B2 may not be as high performance, but their pricing is very low AND very predictable. No gimmicks. I've received many HashBackup customer emails mentioning that they use B2 and have never received complaints about their service.