I don’t use them but I work for a dj that uses them to backup all their music and production music. This has been going on for over 10 years now and they are still using them. At one point I was over there while they were downloading a large batch of their files and the speed was fast enough to saturate his internet.
Selfhosted
A place to share alternatives to popular online services that can be self-hosted without giving up privacy or locking you into a service you don't control.
Rules:
-
Be civil: we're here to support and learn from one another. Insults won't be tolerated. Flame wars are frowned upon.
-
No spam posting.
-
Posts have to be centered around self-hosting. There are other communities for discussing hardware or home computing. If it's not obvious why your post topic revolves around selfhosting, please include details to make it clear.
-
Don't duplicate the full text of your blog or github here. Just post the link for folks to click.
-
Submission headline should match the article title (don’t cherry-pick information from the title to fit your agenda).
-
No trolling.
Resources:
- awesome-selfhosted software
- awesome-sysadmin resources
- Self-Hosted Podcast from Jupiter Broadcasting
Any issues on the community? Report it using the report flag.
Questions? DM the mods!
I’ve used backblaze for years and regularly run recovery exercises. Never had a problem.
However, to avoid any fears, I store remote backups in two locations (the other one being OVH, a large French cloud provider).
My data retention regime:
- Mirrored disks in local NAS.
- Continually (every night) copy to Backblaze(US) and OVH (DE).
- Once/year, copy all local NAS data to offline disks (ie disks that are plugged into a tray only during the copy) to avoid a file locking/encryption infection that could spread to the online files.
How much does OVH cost you for storage?
I pay about £2.50 for 700+ GB storage, with about 2-10 GB of ingress every month. Storage alone is only £1.40. That’s using OVH’s “Cloud Archive” product; they also have a product called Cold Storage which is a smidge cheaper but doesn’t offer updating of existing data, so according to my projections based on the class of data I am archiving it wouldn’t be cheaper in the long term.
Tbf I think a 2-2-1 is sufficient for home users.
I would only recommend 3-2-1 to some that has a business behind themself.
Until your house burns down
2-2-1 still insinuates having a remote backup. I don't see how this particular threat destroys a 2-2-1 setup.
I think the main thing is for you to try doing a test restore of your data before you need to (and you already have a local backup anyway if your test goes wrong)
That will give you a better understanding of the whole process - they might be 100% reliable in storing data which is totally unusable by you because you've lost your decryption key, weren't backing it up correctly, etc (for example).
I really need to do a test restore. I've been backing my NAS up to B2 for about a year now and haven't done one yet.
Yeah, that was me a couple years ago... I'd read some blogs, watched some yoochoobz and had data going from my NAS to Backblaze... encrypted...so... ok... is it restorable? No idea.
I've never really understood the logistics of how to do a test restore.
Do you have to buy a 2nd computer?
No, you can jusy restore to a second location...it depends on whether everything was backed up, or just a few test files.
I prefer backing up specific folders rather than "everything", so it's easier to test. (I'd just reinstall the OS if that was nuked)
Let's say I want to do a test restore of all my photos. I just rename that folder to simulate that it's been accidentally deleted... then I just do a normal restore - and do a bit-by-bit comparison of the two folders and check it all went well.
I just have a smaller dataset using the same settings, which I try to recover a couple of times/year.
It’s not perfect as recovery exercises go … but it feels safe enough for me.
You dont need a second computer, just replace the drive with an empty one.
Used them since the company started but stopped this year due to the cost going up. Never had an issue.
I've used backblaze b2 for almost 8 years now and it just works. I've never had any data lost by them in that time.
I just recently switched over to Storj.io as it a bit cheaper at only $4/TB as compared to B2 at $6/TB. Both are S3 compatible and work with just about every backup software out there. I have used Borg, Kopia and now Restic to do backups of important data. All 3 tools deduplicate all your data and reduces the amount of storage used. They also do encryption client side and are open source. They also have a built-in verification mechanism that checks the data is intact.
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.
Do you use zfs? Something that I am unsure if is whether people are making ZFS backups to backblaze, or if they're backing up files directly.
Ie: Do I need the same filesystem as the source in order to recover the data?
I do use ZFS and I just backup the files with restic. To restore a file in a zfs snapshot I would have to download the entire thing to a spare HDD, even if I only need to recover a few files. Restic has snapshots too and is designed to be used with cloud providers like B2.
Personally I'm using rclone
with the crypt
backend of top of the usual b2
remote