5 ms·

I love the articles from Backblaze. I enjoy them publishing the failure rates of drives and anything else on the blog. Two things missing from them in my opin

I love the articles from Backblaze. I enjoy them publishing the failure rates of drives and anything else on the blog. Two things missing from them in my opinion 1) a Linux client and 2) a second location I guess I could get away without a Linux client if there was an unRAID plugin for B2.

mshook 9y ago
Regarding 1): rclone does the job. That's what I use with B2. https://rclone.org/ https://rclone.org/
- giobox 9y ago
  B2 plus rclone works well, but for many it's potentially significantly more expensive than the standard "all you can eat" $5 a month plan. In my case B2 would workout at roughly 4x the monthly cost and that's before factoring in the fact B2 charges for downloads as well as uploads. An official Linux client would be significantly better value.
  - 086421357909764 9y ago
    As they've said though, the usage of most linux users isn't on par with Windows / Mac users. They simply would crush themselves with people attempting to backup 200TB nas devices for $5.00 a month. If you want any perspective on how crazy the fringes are with data storage and how they impact providers (such as amazon, google, backblaze, etc.) simply read the stories on reddit /r/datahoarder and you'll quickly see why this decision makes sense from a business perspective.
    - giobox 9y ago
      Very small numbers of people already do this on Mac/Windows using tricks like mouting the NAS as an iSCSI device to backup absurd amounts on the $5 plan. The business model is clearly that the legions of small users subsidize the "whales" and Linux desktops are a drop in the ocean vs the Windows/Mac world too. Do you have a source for where Backblaze claimed the usage of most Linux users isn't on par?
      - jlgaddis 9y ago
        > Do you have a source for where Backblaze claimed the usage of most Linux users isn't on par? One of their employees pretty much said exactly that here on HN recently. I don't have the comment bookmarked or anything like that so I can't cite it for you, but I do remember reading it. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but s/he basically said "the math doesn't work out" (for the regular service, not B2 (obviously)).
kentt 9y ago
I just started using Duplicacy with B2 and am very pleased. It's a bit more expensive if you have a lot of data (I do), but it's way faster, transparent and usable than their client.
jstrassburg 9y ago
Second on the linux client. I have a linux machine with a zfs volume that I've been backing up to crashplan. Since they've announced they're dumping their consumer market I have no cost-effective place to go. Most likely, I'll be more picky about my backups and use S3 life-cycled to Glacier.
- comboy 9y ago
  > Since they've announced they're dumping their consumer market Could you link some source? I'm also backing up my linux machines with them and would prefer to plan ahead.
  - BillinghamJ 9y ago
    They have emailed a few times about it. Some info here: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/23/crashplan_ends_consumer_plans/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/23/crashplan_ends_cons...
- pnutjam 9y ago
  time4vps.eu has some nicely price storage servers. They have no backup, since they're designed to be part of a larger backup strategy, but it works for me. affiliate link: https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 Cheaper then backblaze in most situations and you get a full linux host.
- jlgaddis 9y ago
  I would really like to use rsync.net for my "external third-party" backups specifically because of their "ZFS Platform" [0] but (from my off the top of my head calculations) their pricing seems to come out a little on the high side. With my luck, the first time I need to be able to quickly restore a full dataset or something, it will probably have been well worth it and I'll likely be kicking myself for not doing it. [0]: http://www.rsync.net/products/platform.html#zfs http://www.rsync.net/products/platform.html#zfs
  - metalliqaz 9y ago
Scaevolus 9y ago
In previous comments they've indicated that a Linux client won't be released because they can't afford unlimited storage for all the Linux NAS boxes. B2 is priced at a sustainable point for them, so that's your best option for other use cases-- it's only $5/TB*mo!

mshook 9y ago

Regarding 1): rclone does the job. That's what I use with B2. https://rclone.org/ https://rclone.org/

giobox 9y ago
B2 plus rclone works well, but for many it's potentially significantly more expensive than the standard "all you can eat" $5 a month plan. In my case B2 would workout at roughly 4x the monthly cost and that's before factoring in the fact B2 charges for downloads as well as uploads. An official Linux client would be significantly better value.
- 086421357909764 9y ago
  As they've said though, the usage of most linux users isn't on par with Windows / Mac users. They simply would crush themselves with people attempting to backup 200TB nas devices for $5.00 a month. If you want any perspective on how crazy the fringes are with data storage and how they impact providers (such as amazon, google, backblaze, etc.) simply read the stories on reddit /r/datahoarder and you'll quickly see why this decision makes sense from a business perspective.
  - giobox 9y ago
    Very small numbers of people already do this on Mac/Windows using tricks like mouting the NAS as an iSCSI device to backup absurd amounts on the $5 plan. The business model is clearly that the legions of small users subsidize the "whales" and Linux desktops are a drop in the ocean vs the Windows/Mac world too. Do you have a source for where Backblaze claimed the usage of most Linux users isn't on par?
    - jlgaddis 9y ago
      > Do you have a source for where Backblaze claimed the usage of most Linux users isn't on par? One of their employees pretty much said exactly that here on HN recently. I don't have the comment bookmarked or anything like that so I can't cite it for you, but I do remember reading it. I'm paraphrasing, of course, but s/he basically said "the math doesn't work out" (for the regular service, not B2 (obviously)).

kentt 9y ago

I just started using Duplicacy with B2 and am very pleased. It's a bit more expensive if you have a lot of data (I do), but it's way faster, transparent and usable than their client.

jstrassburg 9y ago

Second on the linux client. I have a linux machine with a zfs volume that I've been backing up to crashplan. Since they've announced they're dumping their consumer market I have no cost-effective place to go. Most likely, I'll be more picky about my backups and use S3 life-cycled to Glacier.

comboy 9y ago
> Since they've announced they're dumping their consumer market Could you link some source? I'm also backing up my linux machines with them and would prefer to plan ahead.
- BillinghamJ 9y ago
  They have emailed a few times about it. Some info here: https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/23/crashplan_ends_consumer_plans/ https://www.theregister.co.uk/2017/08/23/crashplan_ends_cons...
pnutjam 9y ago
time4vps.eu has some nicely price storage servers. They have no backup, since they're designed to be part of a larger backup strategy, but it works for me. affiliate link: https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 Cheaper then backblaze in most situations and you get a full linux host.
jlgaddis 9y ago
I would really like to use rsync.net for my "external third-party" backups specifically because of their "ZFS Platform" [0] but (from my off the top of my head calculations) their pricing seems to come out a little on the high side. With my luck, the first time I need to be able to quickly restore a full dataset or something, it will probably have been well worth it and I'll likely be kicking myself for not doing it. [0]: http://www.rsync.net/products/platform.html#zfs http://www.rsync.net/products/platform.html#zfs
- metalliqaz 9y ago

Scaevolus 9y ago

In previous comments they've indicated that a Linux client won't be released because they can't afford unlimited storage for all the Linux NAS boxes. B2 is priced at a sustainable point for them, so that's your best option for other use cases-- it's only $5/TB*mo!