3 ms·

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 releas

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).
  - mjevans 9y ago
    Another feature (which didn't exist the last time I checked) SHOULD be to have /append only/ accounts. It should be a /more privileged/ instruction to delete / replace / modify already stored files. This could prevent a backup service on a compromised system from removing remote backups. (Assuming the administrative information was kept secure using other means.) Ideally I'd like to be able to manually assign privileges to sub-accounts. * Modify: resume uploads older than 24 hours * Modify: remove/delete * Modify: change storage (filestream/parameters/metadata etc). * Append: create new buckets * Append: add a new file to a bucket * Append: add a new /version/ of a file in a bucket. * Append: add metadata * Read: all list operations * Read: all download operations Note: Since the main way of racking up money on a B2 account is downloads and since compromised clients could be used to engage in a DDoS attack (by compromised legitimate customer accounts) //read// operations are actually more sensitive than might be initially guessed. A simplified customer UI might bundle those operations together, but some advanced way of providing finely grained privileges should be created. Edit: Fixing formatting.
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.

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).
- mjevans 9y ago
  Another feature (which didn't exist the last time I checked) SHOULD be to have /append only/ accounts. It should be a /more privileged/ instruction to delete / replace / modify already stored files. This could prevent a backup service on a compromised system from removing remote backups. (Assuming the administrative information was kept secure using other means.) Ideally I'd like to be able to manually assign privileges to sub-accounts. * Modify: resume uploads older than 24 hours * Modify: remove/delete * Modify: change storage (filestream/parameters/metadata etc). * Append: create new buckets * Append: add a new file to a bucket * Append: add a new /version/ of a file in a bucket. * Append: add metadata * Read: all list operations * Read: all download operations Note: Since the main way of racking up money on a B2 account is downloads and since compromised clients could be used to engage in a DDoS attack (by compromised legitimate customer accounts) //read// operations are actually more sensitive than might be initially guessed. A simplified customer UI might bundle those operations together, but some advanced way of providing finely grained privileges should be created. Edit: Fixing formatting.

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.