3 ms·

So how is this better than rsync.net?

• FractalParadigm 6y ago
  The biggest difference that I can see is that this is more like a colo, where you own (or rent) your own equipment (in this case hard drives) to be stored in their facility, where you'll get a (rather generous IMO) VPS that can access your data.
• hestefisk 6y ago
  Probably faster, more efficient (less bandwidth consumed) sync because of block level replication rather than file-level.
  • sirn 6y ago
    rsync.net also offers block-level replication via zfs send[1] [1]: https://www.rsync.net/products/zfsintro.html https://www.rsync.net/products/zfsintro.html
    • hestefisk 6y ago
      Oh! Neat.
• croon 6y ago
  Seems to be a lot cheaper for one. Unless I'm missing something rsync.net is minimum $25/month for 1TB, and this is ~$15/month for 8TB.
• kencausey 6y ago
  Perhaps I'm wrong but this seems to give you full access to a VM whereas with rsync.net you only have very restricted access mostly to support storage and little else.
• dcchambers 6y ago
  They seem to offer different use cases - I'm not sure you can say one is better than the other. rsync.net is more expensive, but has included snapshots and better fault tolerance/data retention policies. It's also been around for nearly 20 years, they own their own datacenters, and have a proven track record with thousands of users. This is cheaper (maybe, depending on your bandwidth usage) and gives you better "ownership" of the hardware, but because it is hardware its just as likely to fail or corrupt data as a hard drive sitting under your desk. This service is also in beta with just a handful of users. Both companies seem to have really good policies and to be unix user-friendly.