Hi everyone,
I’ve started pushing backups of media important to me (family pictures, video etc) to backblaze with client-side encryption.
However, are they a reliable storage provider? I can’t help but compare them to something like Amazon who likely has a better chance of maintaining my files but they are so expensive that I don’t even bother.
What do you think? Yes, I’ve heard of 3-2-1, however for now I only have backblaze and a local backup. I’m trying not to spend too much on this.
Thanks!
There definitely isn’t a docker container that will let you run Backblaze in WINE so that you can get the cheap unlimited plan working on Linux. You shouldn’t go looking for such a thing to save money. /s
For my use, it actually cost less to use B2 than the home backup product. The bulk of my data is Linux isos so I’m not really worried about losing it.
Awesome and hopefully they never find out as that’s against their TOS. Sticking it to the man for what? ~$20 a year, potentially losing your backups and not having any if they find out? Why would you want to potentially lose your backup service over this? Idk why but this seems dumb. The point of 3-2-1 is to reduce points of failure and you are increasing your potential of data loss by doing this.
You are massively oversimplifying the situation. They are discriminating against which operating system I use, and not addressing that data is data. If I ran a windows VM on the same machine and put my data in there, it would be exactly the same as running the Backblaze container.
And it isn’t a $20 per year difference—if I backed up the same amount of data on the B2 plan, it would be around $3000 per year. Seems like a pretty steep increase to back up the same amount of data through Debian as opposed to Windows. They’ve never complained, never even tried to sell me the B2 plan, and I haven’t even seen anything telling me I’m storing an overly large amount of data for my plan.
Lastly, I read their TOS, and I don’t consider myself to be breaking them. I’m only backing up personal files at home and the program is technically running through a windows environment. That is what their unlimited plan was designed for. If they wanted it to be different, they could call it a 10TB plan.
I’m sure some will disagree with me. To each their own.
I see your valid points. However, my point regarding backups being in a trust worthy area still stands. Idk why you would chance it by doing this. Besides that there are other reasons I will point out which I assume is their reasoning, statistically, is that Windows users tend to be a ton less savvy than Linux users, so they would be only backing up what is available on their system, and I bet on average they don’t have more than 1TB drive with maybe 300gb if storage used that needs to be backed up, like pictures which is equivalent to the 1TB a month plan which I am assuming is the cost of the windows unlimited plan. If you want to screw over companies with exploits, please do so the evil/terrible companies; otherwise this makes you look like an asshole. My 2 cents, and no I don’t work for them.
TL;DR - average windows user most likely uses no more than 300GB so offering an “unlimited plan” to them to make money on under-utilized plan makes business sense.
Then sell me a 1TB plan—don’t call it unlimited.
I’m not screwing anybody over. I am using an available plan from a large company, and they have not had any issue with my usage that they have deemed necessary to bring to my attention. I cover multiple machines with their service, and my other machines have far less data on them—likely below their average. I am using it as a personal backup, as intended. Even if I trend above their average, they had to expect that some users would fall into that category if the option was available.
You are the only party that seems to have a major issue with how I’m using the service. I don’t understand why you seem to have such a strong opinion on this.
If a business doesn’t want a plan to be used as unlimited storage, then they should simply set a limit in the terms.