4 ms·
"[Some users] store multiple terabytes." They are certainly not a replacement for S3, but could be a substitute for some use cases. Also, they can certainly c
by TomatoTomato 14y ago
"[Some users] store multiple terabytes."
They are certainly not a replacement for S3, but could be a substitute for some use cases. Also, they can certainly change their stance at any point, but they are certainly committed to truly unlimited.
http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/02/03/backblaze-is-committed-to-unlimited-backup/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/02/03/backblaze-is-committed-...
http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/10/26/backblaze-2-0-unlimiting-unlimited/ http://blog.backblaze.com/2011/10/26/backblaze-2-0-unlimitin...
- kozubik 14y agoUnlimited storage is a farce, and places you in an antagonistic relationship with your provider: http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/11/flat-rate-storage-services-vs-rsyncnet.html http://blog.kozubik.com/john_kozubik/2009/11/flat-rate-stora... ... which is the last thing you want with serious backups.
- Dylan16807 14y agoFrom what I've seen it's not a big problem here because it's unlimited storage for one desktop. The high-end users are only able to go so high.