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!

  • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
    link
    fedilink
    English
    arrow-up
    3
    ·
    4 months ago

    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.

    • 0^2@lemmy.dbzer0.com
      link
      fedilink
      English
      arrow-up
      1
      arrow-down
      1
      ·
      4 months ago

      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.

      • WeirdGoesPro@lemmy.dbzer0.com
        link
        fedilink
        English
        arrow-up
        1
        ·
        4 months ago

        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.