3 ms·
Backblaze has explicitly said more or less the exact reason they don't have a Linux client for their one-price-fits-all backup service is that they don't want p
by ac29 7y ago
Backblaze has explicitly said more or less the exact reason they don't have a Linux client for their one-price-fits-all backup service is that they don't want people backing up multi-TB NAS devices. The folks over r/DataHoarder/ would absolutely destroy them if they offered unlimited backups for NAS devices for $6/month - many of them have hundreds of TB on their personal NAS'.
Its absolutely the correct business decision, and as you note, you are more than welcome to use B2 and pay per GB for as much storage as you want.
- bluedino 7y agoOn Reddit they said the biggest user was storing 430TB on the $5 plan
- brianwski 7y agoDisclaimer: I work at Backblaze. > they said the biggest user was storing 430TB on the $5 plan Here is the histogram of Personal Backup sizes at the end of 2018: https://i.imgur.com/iVEuwUT.jpg https://i.imgur.com/iVEuwUT.jpg You will need to "zoom in" and then scroll over to the right to see the largest at that time.
- bproven 7y agoyou can still (probably) do that now using b2 cloud with duplicity or restic you just don't have an official Linux client. Although I do use restic on my laptop (backing up to b2) I wish they had a nice official Linux client for desktops (unless you are talking about non-b2 :) )
- metafunctor 7y agoThen you pay a fair price for the space you actually use, not a flat monthly fee.
- quickthrower2 7y agoSimple solution: A limit.