3 ms·

I switched from Backblaze to Crashplan a few years ago, and I've been MUCH happier with Crashplan. The biggest issue is that, at least on Mac, Backblaze noticea

I switched from Backblaze to Crashplan a few years ago, and I've been MUCH happier with Crashplan. The biggest issue is that, at least on Mac, Backblaze noticeably slowed down the machines (multiple machines, not just a problem on one), while Crashplan didn't. Any backup software that makes my computer feel slow, creates regular beachballs, etc. is not something I'm going to pay for. Then the nail in the coffin for them was when I very carefully followed their instructions for migrating to a new computer, and yet it STILL insisted on starting from zero and backing up everything again. I figured if I had to backup from scratch anyway, I might as well do a trial run of something else, and I haven't looked back since. So, this news makes me very sad, but there's no way I'm returning to Backblaze...

brianwski 9y ago
Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze, and I'm one of the main people who writes the client. I would encourage you to try the Backblaze client again. We JUST released the 5.0 client (last week) and we continue to make little fixes that improve the customer experience. The client team's MAIN GOAL has always been that the client run in "Continuously" mode and NOT annoy the customer. For example, even up until a year ago we didn't realize how reading certain datastructures from disk that we need to backup were hurting performance in non-SSD based computers. As developers we tend to run with SSDs now, so it went undetected for a while. So we're in the process of making that more and more invisible for customers still on on spinning drives in their laptops. The way we do make this invisible is actually slowing down the reading of those data structures so that it doesn't interrupt what you are doing. > and yet it STILL insisted on starting from zero and backing up everything again If you do an "Inherit Backup State" you will not re-upload everything. However, Backblaze has to read EVERY file off of local disk and compare the checksums (SHA1) and if the files have moved it must deduplicate and record the new location, so this can appear like a massive load on your computer for a few hours. I would encourage you to open the Network control panel and notice no files are actually pushed.
- gt_ 9y ago
  It's pretty clear in the comments here that all efforts other than solving the 30 day file retention limit are going to be a waste of time until you address this. It simply reduces the utility of the product to the point that you need yet another product that will almost inherently render yor product unnecessary. Until you address this, I can't reason investing time, processor performance, or the tiny monthly payment. Complete backup plans are taken seriously by myself and other HN users and when one tries to put one together and include Backblaze, it just doesn't add up. Maybe you could make a blog post that addresses your recommendations head on. I remain open!
  - brianwski 9y ago
    > all efforts other than solving the 30 day file retention limit Trust me, that message has come through loud and clear! :-) We are going to do some analysis to see if we can afford it, but we'll need at least a week or two to figure that out.
    - rrauenza 9y ago
      With the prevalence of crypto ransom ware ... I'd really like more than 30 days. Speaking of which -- possibly simple feature request -- when a files' entropy suddenly goes high from low, alert the user and keep the files longer.
    - blaqsmith 9y ago
      If you find that significantly expanding the retention limit doesn't fit within the current pricing structure (as I expect it wouldn't given how competitively priced Backblaze is), consider offering it as an add-on feature, as Dropbox does with Extended Version History (+$40/yr for 1-year retention of deleted files).
      - mjevans 9y ago
        I think at a high level users might be OK with paying for their actual stored file size. A way of improving the storage size might be to allow the user to white-list (with some defaults) folders more likely to have 'third party' files (E.G. C:\\Windows, C:\\Program*, /usr/) either excluded if they're on a list of common files or de-duplicated with a public list of common files (and check-sums). It would be useful to add-on programs and scripts if that list were public, and if a way of cloning those files in to a discounted pool were possible by 'uploading' them again (to ensure the customer actually /has/ that file and thus presumably the right to restore it).
- zippergz 9y ago
  > If you do an "Inherit Backup State" you will not re-upload everything I tried this, and it failed. I went back and forth with support for some time, and at the end they effectively shrugged. I may have encountered some weird bug, I dunno, but it was definitely uploading everything again, and support acknowledged as much.
mcgrath_sh 9y ago
I went from Crash Plan (much too long to back up my files) to BlackBlaze (every time it would hit the end of uploading, my backups would disappear and I would have to re-upload 3 terabytes of data, BB support couldn't figure anything out) to finally just rolling my own external hard drive backups for media and using Dropbox (which I had been using anyway and love) and a hard drive for my files and pictures. I am going to upload just pictures to a cloud service in the future. Between Dropbox file restore and the external HD my files and pictures don't disappear. I don't care about my music and I have found that my media backups simply need to be made and then checked every couple of months. Turns out, TV shows, audiobooks, sporting events, and other static media are wonderful for just tossing onto a hard drive, labeling the hard drive with either a reference to a text file showing what is on it or labeling the drive itself. For example one of the HDs I have is literally labeled: - 2014 FIFA World Cup - Brasil - 2015-16 Penguins Stanley Cup - 2016-17 Penguins Stanley Cup - 2015-16 Los Angeles Lakers (Kobe's Final Season) Every so often I go in and check that a game from each of these is playable at the start and end of a half, period, or quarter. The TV shows and movies I have on Blu-Ray/DVD I don't even check. This is more "I'm too lazy to re-rip, but if I have to, I will" backups. Ebooks are really the only media that I have to remember to backup, and that library is so small (and relatively static) that I just drag it to a USB stick every couple of months.

brianwski 9y ago

Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze, and I'm one of the main people who writes the client. I would encourage you to try the Backblaze client again. We JUST released the 5.0 client (last week) and we continue to make little fixes that improve the customer experience. The client team's MAIN GOAL has always been that the client run in "Continuously" mode and NOT annoy the customer. For example, even up until a year ago we didn't realize how reading certain datastructures from disk that we need to backup were hurting performance in non-SSD based computers. As developers we tend to run with SSDs now, so it went undetected for a while. So we're in the process of making that more and more invisible for customers still on on spinning drives in their laptops. The way we do make this invisible is actually slowing down the reading of those data structures so that it doesn't interrupt what you are doing. > and yet it STILL insisted on starting from zero and backing up everything again If you do an "Inherit Backup State" you will not re-upload everything. However, Backblaze has to read EVERY file off of local disk and compare the checksums (SHA1) and if the files have moved it must deduplicate and record the new location, so this can appear like a massive load on your computer for a few hours. I would encourage you to open the Network control panel and notice no files are actually pushed.

gt_ 9y ago
It's pretty clear in the comments here that all efforts other than solving the 30 day file retention limit are going to be a waste of time until you address this. It simply reduces the utility of the product to the point that you need yet another product that will almost inherently render yor product unnecessary. Until you address this, I can't reason investing time, processor performance, or the tiny monthly payment. Complete backup plans are taken seriously by myself and other HN users and when one tries to put one together and include Backblaze, it just doesn't add up. Maybe you could make a blog post that addresses your recommendations head on. I remain open!
- brianwski 9y ago
  > all efforts other than solving the 30 day file retention limit Trust me, that message has come through loud and clear! :-) We are going to do some analysis to see if we can afford it, but we'll need at least a week or two to figure that out.
  - rrauenza 9y ago
    With the prevalence of crypto ransom ware ... I'd really like more than 30 days. Speaking of which -- possibly simple feature request -- when a files' entropy suddenly goes high from low, alert the user and keep the files longer.
  - blaqsmith 9y ago
    If you find that significantly expanding the retention limit doesn't fit within the current pricing structure (as I expect it wouldn't given how competitively priced Backblaze is), consider offering it as an add-on feature, as Dropbox does with Extended Version History (+$40/yr for 1-year retention of deleted files).
    - mjevans 9y ago
      I think at a high level users might be OK with paying for their actual stored file size. A way of improving the storage size might be to allow the user to white-list (with some defaults) folders more likely to have 'third party' files (E.G. C:\\Windows, C:\\Program*, /usr/) either excluded if they're on a list of common files or de-duplicated with a public list of common files (and check-sums). It would be useful to add-on programs and scripts if that list were public, and if a way of cloning those files in to a discounted pool were possible by 'uploading' them again (to ensure the customer actually /has/ that file and thus presumably the right to restore it).
zippergz 9y ago
> If you do an "Inherit Backup State" you will not re-upload everything I tried this, and it failed. I went back and forth with support for some time, and at the end they effectively shrugged. I may have encountered some weird bug, I dunno, but it was definitely uploading everything again, and support acknowledged as much.

mcgrath_sh 9y ago

I went from Crash Plan (much too long to back up my files) to BlackBlaze (every time it would hit the end of uploading, my backups would disappear and I would have to re-upload 3 terabytes of data, BB support couldn't figure anything out) to finally just rolling my own external hard drive backups for media and using Dropbox (which I had been using anyway and love) and a hard drive for my files and pictures. I am going to upload just pictures to a cloud service in the future. Between Dropbox file restore and the external HD my files and pictures don't disappear. I don't care about my music and I have found that my media backups simply need to be made and then checked every couple of months. Turns out, TV shows, audiobooks, sporting events, and other static media are wonderful for just tossing onto a hard drive, labeling the hard drive with either a reference to a text file showing what is on it or labeling the drive itself. For example one of the HDs I have is literally labeled: - 2014 FIFA World Cup - Brasil - 2015-16 Penguins Stanley Cup - 2016-17 Penguins Stanley Cup - 2015-16 Los Angeles Lakers (Kobe's Final Season) Every so often I go in and check that a game from each of these is playable at the start and end of a half, period, or quarter. The TV shows and movies I have on Blu-Ray/DVD I don't even check. This is more "I'm too lazy to re-rip, but if I have to, I will" backups. Ebooks are really the only media that I have to remember to backup, and that library is so small (and relatively static) that I just drag it to a USB stick every couple of months.