4 ms·

Great product but too $$$$$$$$$$$$$ for my taste.

anc84 8y ago
It's almost like they try to be a self-sustaining, viable business instead of burning through VC money with irresponsible pricing that kills fair competitors.
- Karunamon 8y ago
  The snark is really not necessary or contributing to the conversation. AWS Glacier, hardly a VC-backed startup, charges a literal tenth of the cost. Given that most people are going to be holding on to their backups rather than retrieving them regularly, the pricing math works out better even though it's a bit more complicated. Say you push 2TB up to Rsync, AWS Glacier, and Backblaze B2, and you need that data back a year later. Rsync will cost you $80x12: $960, bottom line. Glacier will cost you $8.00x12: $96 for the storage, plus .01 for a thousand retrieve requests, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retreival, plus 0.09 per gigabyte transfer. $96 + .01 + $20 + $180 = $296.10 Backblaze B2: $10x12 = $120 for the storage, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retrieved: $120 + $20 = $140 I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze, but they're actually charging more for the plain storage than AWS, where you're paying more for the bandwidth!
  - brianwski 8y ago
    Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. > I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze And ironically, Backblaze is 99% self-funded and doesn't have VC funding and no deep pockets. We're profitable, the only way to stay in business without VC funding. (Note: we did have a tiny "friends and family" round in 2009 which was 9 years ago. Plus we sold a small percentage of the company to a silent investor who didn't even get a board seat, no votes, no control. 100% of the board of directors are founders of Backblaze.)
  - rsync 8y ago
    "AWS Glacier ... charges a literal tenth of the cost." Amazon Glacier and Google Nearline are not comparable products. What we offer at rsync.net is a live, online, random access filesystem - so the appropriate comparison is with Amazon S3. I believe our current pricing is reasonably comparable to S3 - and at larger quantities is actually cheaper. Also, the borg pricing (2 cents) is cheaper at any quantity.
    - Karunamon 8y ago
      Fine... but your marketing is literally all about backups. The front page of rsync.net is "cloud storage for offsite backups". If you hadn't told me this, or if I don't call a human on the phone number (why? this is an immediate turnoff) listed on your cloud storage page, or go read on "open platform" (which sounds less like a tech page and more like a marketing page), I'd never know about it.
coaxial 8y ago
The Borg/Attic/HN discounted price is a quarter of the regular price IIRC. Well worth it IMHO. They're reliable, answer emails very fast, and are happy to provide technical help should you need it to configure your system.
- StavrosK 8y ago
  I use their Borg discount as well, and am extremely happy with it. I do wish it were cheaper, but I get 150 GB for $50/yr, which is enough for me with careful rationing. I wish I had a TB for $50 so I didn't have to be so judicious with my photos, but the ability to use Borg is so fantastic that I can't complain.
  - rsync 8y ago
    Your account is about to get larger ... We lowered the borg rate to 2c this past month and, as is our policy, existing accounts get enlarged to match ... So in the near future, your 150 GB account will become ~208 GB in size ...
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      That's great news, thank you!
  - pnutjam 8y ago
    You can get get a 500GB storage server for about that price, a bit more for a TB. I run an Ubuntu instance and use borg to backup my home systems to this server. my affiliate link: https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 (straight link: https://www.time4vps.eu/storage-servers/ https://www.time4vps.eu/storage-servers/)
    - StavrosK 8y ago
      That's pretty useful, thanks!
- tbe 8y ago

It's almost like they try to be a self-sustaining, viable business instead of burning through VC money with irresponsible pricing that kills fair competitors.

Karunamon 8y ago
The snark is really not necessary or contributing to the conversation. AWS Glacier, hardly a VC-backed startup, charges a literal tenth of the cost. Given that most people are going to be holding on to their backups rather than retrieving them regularly, the pricing math works out better even though it's a bit more complicated. Say you push 2TB up to Rsync, AWS Glacier, and Backblaze B2, and you need that data back a year later. Rsync will cost you $80x12: $960, bottom line. Glacier will cost you $8.00x12: $96 for the storage, plus .01 for a thousand retrieve requests, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retreival, plus 0.09 per gigabyte transfer. $96 + .01 + $20 + $180 = $296.10 Backblaze B2: $10x12 = $120 for the storage, plus 0.01 per gigabyte retrieved: $120 + $20 = $140 I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze, but they're actually charging more for the plain storage than AWS, where you're paying more for the bandwidth!
- brianwski 8y ago
  Disclaimer: I work at Backblaze. > I'm guessing the "startup" dig was directed at Backblaze And ironically, Backblaze is 99% self-funded and doesn't have VC funding and no deep pockets. We're profitable, the only way to stay in business without VC funding. (Note: we did have a tiny "friends and family" round in 2009 which was 9 years ago. Plus we sold a small percentage of the company to a silent investor who didn't even get a board seat, no votes, no control. 100% of the board of directors are founders of Backblaze.)
- rsync 8y ago
  "AWS Glacier ... charges a literal tenth of the cost." Amazon Glacier and Google Nearline are not comparable products. What we offer at rsync.net is a live, online, random access filesystem - so the appropriate comparison is with Amazon S3. I believe our current pricing is reasonably comparable to S3 - and at larger quantities is actually cheaper. Also, the borg pricing (2 cents) is cheaper at any quantity.
  - Karunamon 8y ago
    Fine... but your marketing is literally all about backups. The front page of rsync.net is "cloud storage for offsite backups". If you hadn't told me this, or if I don't call a human on the phone number (why? this is an immediate turnoff) listed on your cloud storage page, or go read on "open platform" (which sounds less like a tech page and more like a marketing page), I'd never know about it.

coaxial 8y ago

The Borg/Attic/HN discounted price is a quarter of the regular price IIRC. Well worth it IMHO. They're reliable, answer emails very fast, and are happy to provide technical help should you need it to configure your system.

StavrosK 8y ago
I use their Borg discount as well, and am extremely happy with it. I do wish it were cheaper, but I get 150 GB for $50/yr, which is enough for me with careful rationing. I wish I had a TB for $50 so I didn't have to be so judicious with my photos, but the ability to use Borg is so fantastic that I can't complain.
- rsync 8y ago
  Your account is about to get larger ... We lowered the borg rate to 2c this past month and, as is our policy, existing accounts get enlarged to match ... So in the near future, your 150 GB account will become ~208 GB in size ...
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    That's great news, thank you!
- pnutjam 8y ago
  You can get get a 500GB storage server for about that price, a bit more for a TB. I run an Ubuntu instance and use borg to backup my home systems to this server. my affiliate link: https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 https://billing.time4vps.eu/?affid=1881 (straight link: https://www.time4vps.eu/storage-servers/ https://www.time4vps.eu/storage-servers/)
  - StavrosK 8y ago
    That's pretty useful, thanks!
tbe 8y ago