4 ms·

Hey there! The business and consumer computer backup service have the same feature-set, so our business service would also not work with a NAS or Linux box. I'd

by atYevP 9y ago

Hey there! The business and consumer computer backup service have the same feature-set, so our business service would also not work with a NAS or Linux box. I'd recommend looking in to Backblaze B2. It'll be a bit more expensive as it's $0.005/GB but you'll have more control over your backups and lots of integrators make it easy.

corobo 9y ago
Is Linux backup support anywhere on the radar at all? I recently trimmed down my Backblaze licenses after switching to Linux installs, just went with s3 as s3cmd had a path of least resistance to storing backups. Would love to switch back if it's ever possible :)
- ac29 9y ago
  Theyve repeatedly said no -- it breaks their business model to allow Linux machines (often servers) to backup "unlimited" data for $5/month. People with multi-hundred TB NAS machines would end that business model, quickly (see Amazon Cloud Drive, Crashplan, and others). But if youre using S3, just switch to B2, its per GB pricing, much cheaper than S3 and supports lots of Linux tools. I use rclone.
  - x4d66a5ce 9y ago
    I took the GP's remark about how he "went with s3 as s3cmd had a path of least resistance to storing backups" to mean that he considered B2 but opted for S3 since the latter offers a backup utility, but the former supports neither a "native" (e.g., git or rsync over SSH) backup interface, nor does it have a Linux client—the approach for backup on B2 from desktop Linux is to roll your own backup solution or use somebody else's client that has already added support for the B2 API. I'm pretty sure the right Linux backup solution is rsync.net, by the way, which does support a native (SSH) file access interface. For big backups, storage is (slightly less than) twice as expensive as S3, but unlike S3, there are no bandwidth costs.
    - ac29 9y ago
      rsync.net is 18x as expensive as B2. Have you ever used rclone? Its surprisingly good, though might not be a perfect replacement for rsync, depending on your usage.
      - x4d66a5ce 9y ago
        > rsync.net is 18x as expensive as B2 I'm aware, but B2 is not the reference point. He said he went with S3, so that's what we're comparing to. I.e., if S3's prices are palatable, then rsync.net might be, too.
    - rsync 9y ago
      "For big backups, storage is (slightly less than) twice as expensive as S3, but unlike S3, there are no bandwidth costs." Just to clarify ... we (rsync.net) support "borg backup" now (with borg deployed on the server side ...) which is the "holy grail" of efficient, zero knowledge, remote backups: https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ ... and if you are willing to give up our ZFS snapshots on the account (you manage retention yourself with borg) and you are willing to handle your own technical support of borg, we offer a 3 cents rate. This is about the same price as S3: http://rsync.net/products/attic.html http://rsync.net/products/attic.html
      - corobo 9y ago
        Sorry guys the path of least resistance also took into account price. I'll admit I've not checked your pricing recently but last time I used your service I was paying something like $70/yr for <100G storage

by atYevP 9y ago

corobo 9y ago

Is Linux backup support anywhere on the radar at all? I recently trimmed down my Backblaze licenses after switching to Linux installs, just went with s3 as s3cmd had a path of least resistance to storing backups. Would love to switch back if it's ever possible :)

ac29 9y ago
Theyve repeatedly said no -- it breaks their business model to allow Linux machines (often servers) to backup "unlimited" data for $5/month. People with multi-hundred TB NAS machines would end that business model, quickly (see Amazon Cloud Drive, Crashplan, and others). But if youre using S3, just switch to B2, its per GB pricing, much cheaper than S3 and supports lots of Linux tools. I use rclone.
- x4d66a5ce 9y ago
  I took the GP's remark about how he "went with s3 as s3cmd had a path of least resistance to storing backups" to mean that he considered B2 but opted for S3 since the latter offers a backup utility, but the former supports neither a "native" (e.g., git or rsync over SSH) backup interface, nor does it have a Linux client—the approach for backup on B2 from desktop Linux is to roll your own backup solution or use somebody else's client that has already added support for the B2 API. I'm pretty sure the right Linux backup solution is rsync.net, by the way, which does support a native (SSH) file access interface. For big backups, storage is (slightly less than) twice as expensive as S3, but unlike S3, there are no bandwidth costs.
  - ac29 9y ago
    rsync.net is 18x as expensive as B2. Have you ever used rclone? Its surprisingly good, though might not be a perfect replacement for rsync, depending on your usage.
    - x4d66a5ce 9y ago
      > rsync.net is 18x as expensive as B2 I'm aware, but B2 is not the reference point. He said he went with S3, so that's what we're comparing to. I.e., if S3's prices are palatable, then rsync.net might be, too.
  - rsync 9y ago
    "For big backups, storage is (slightly less than) twice as expensive as S3, but unlike S3, there are no bandwidth costs." Just to clarify ... we (rsync.net) support "borg backup" now (with borg deployed on the server side ...) which is the "holy grail" of efficient, zero knowledge, remote backups: https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ https://www.stavros.io/posts/holy-grail-backups/ ... and if you are willing to give up our ZFS snapshots on the account (you manage retention yourself with borg) and you are willing to handle your own technical support of borg, we offer a 3 cents rate. This is about the same price as S3: http://rsync.net/products/attic.html http://rsync.net/products/attic.html
    - corobo 9y ago
      Sorry guys the path of least resistance also took into account price. I'll admit I've not checked your pricing recently but last time I used your service I was paying something like $70/yr for <100G storage