I think everyone agrees the Backblaze (bb) has no performance - and that's fine. But a lot of his complaints are about reliability, and thats kind of a moot po

I think everyone agrees the Backblaze (bb) has no performance - and that's fine. But a lot of his complaints are about reliability, and thats kind of a moot point since Backblaze (and anyone sane) stores every piece of data on at least two (and ideally 3 or more) separate bbs. I would argue if you don't need performance (i.e., no huge database), but you do need a lot of space, you're better off just setting up two 'mirrored' bbs (so that when one goes down, the other takes over) than almost any 'enterprise' solution. He does have a point about ZFS though - I'm sure at that kind of scale eventually the RAID 5/6 write-hole is going to bite you in the ass.