Recognizing the limitations of cloud drives(backblaze.com)
backblaze.com
Recognizing the limitations of cloud drives
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/whats-wrong-with-google-drive-dropbox-and-onedrive-more-than-you-think/
112 comments
> My response was basically: We need a longer retention plan if we're going to call ourselves "backup." The point of "backup" is to restore in cases like this, where someone (or something) accidentally deleted files.
I'm using local backup software and it's pretty clear to me that versioned and trashed files still occupies space until I delete them permanently. If you provide 1TB of storage space, make it clear that the trash and versioning occupies some of that space instead of a random retention period. Ditto if it's unlimited and priced by usage.
I'm using local backup software and it's pretty clear to me that versioned and trashed files still occupies space until I delete them permanently. If you provide 1TB of storage space, make it clear that the trash and versioning occupies some of that space instead of a random retention period. Ditto if it's unlimited and priced by usage.
In your experience, at what point is the retention window sufficient? Naively, infinite must be the wrong answer, and any other answer from there seems like bikeshedding, but of course it does to me, who has 0 experience in the space
You charge for deleted file retention like it's any other thing that takes up space and let the customer decide how much they want to pay for. Some will want to pay for "5 years" worth, others won't care. To be extra good about it, maybe do it like borg backup and others and save the changes with dedup and compression. You can have literal years of file retention and have it take up less space than you think it would.
This is the correct answer.
As someone using cloud storage, the only answer is the amount I pay for.
I pay for one year with Backblaze (on the cheaper plan, it’s much shorter but they’re explicit about it) and I expect one year and they hold themselves to that one year. It’s a number we both decided on ahead of time.
For something like Google Drive or Dropbox, I expect no retention at all tbh. It’s a plus if I need it and they have it.
I pay for one year with Backblaze (on the cheaper plan, it’s much shorter but they’re explicit about it) and I expect one year and they hold themselves to that one year. It’s a number we both decided on ahead of time.
For something like Google Drive or Dropbox, I expect no retention at all tbh. It’s a plus if I need it and they have it.
A lot of responses in the thread say that deleted files should be counted in the quota. (And then stored until the user purges.)
I'm general, I think this is a good approach.
The consequence is that there is a certain class of user that won't understand this and will get confused when their account hits quota, but they don't see those files on their computer.
Another consequence is that we don't sync recycle bins, so it wouldn't be straightforward for users to purge it.
I personally think that moving deleted files to something like Glacier, (slow and cheap, think tape in the cloud,) and then having a separate recycle bin quota, is the best approach. (https://aws.amazon.com/pm/s3-glacier/?trk=75fef084-bf49-48b4...)
I'm general, I think this is a good approach.
The consequence is that there is a certain class of user that won't understand this and will get confused when their account hits quota, but they don't see those files on their computer.
Another consequence is that we don't sync recycle bins, so it wouldn't be straightforward for users to purge it.
I personally think that moving deleted files to something like Glacier, (slow and cheap, think tape in the cloud,) and then having a separate recycle bin quota, is the best approach. (https://aws.amazon.com/pm/s3-glacier/?trk=75fef084-bf49-48b4...)
If you can recover everything, then the data retention is too high.
If you can't recover anything, then the data retention is too low.
Find a sweet spot where you can satisfy most clients at a manageable cost. Offer problem clients a higher data retention for a premium.
Find a sweet spot where you can satisfy most clients at a manageable cost. Offer problem clients a higher data retention for a premium.
Isn't the retention window something that should be chosen by the customer?
Possibly, but:
That's confusing for non-technical people, and it makes the product more complicated.
Corner cases were the source of (almost) all of our bugs. (A configurable retention window will add corner cases.) What happens is that one customer will have a particular combination of corner cases that no one else has, and then that customer hits a bug that no one else will hit.
That's confusing for non-technical people, and it makes the product more complicated.
Corner cases were the source of (almost) all of our bugs. (A configurable retention window will add corner cases.) What happens is that one customer will have a particular combination of corner cases that no one else has, and then that customer hits a bug that no one else will hit.
> and then that customer hits a bug that no one else will hit.
What I should also add is that bugs that only effect a few customers will be very low priority.
IE: This is why software with lots of options is often buggy: Options create corner cases that aren't high priority to debug.
What I should also add is that bugs that only effect a few customers will be very low priority.
IE: This is why software with lots of options is often buggy: Options create corner cases that aren't high priority to debug.
This is a badly written Backblaze advertisement. It’s full of incorrect information about the competitors — Dropbox and OneDrive do keep old versions of files, for at least 30 days (Google probably does too, but I couldn’t find a number.)
30 days is way too short.
In my experience, people either realise that they accidentally deleted a file immediately or after 3+ months. The day 2-90 period is rarely where a file needs to be recovered from.
A recycle bin isn't a backup solution. 30 days is plenty and anything beyond that is ridiculous. If you need backups, implement backups.
Dropbox also has options for version history to be kept a lot longer than 30 days: https://help.dropbox.com/delete-restore/extended-version-his...
Dropbox has paid add-ons or higher priced tiers to bump your retention to 1-year. I have the add-on and I have used it just once (so far) but I feel happy that I can go back and look for a file that I might have deleted within the last 1-year.
This comes in handy when my local Time Machine go as far as just about 6 months or so. I might need to upgrade to a NAS and hook up a larger capacity drive.
This comes in handy when my local Time Machine go as far as just about 6 months or so. I might need to upgrade to a NAS and hook up a larger capacity drive.
indeed, how can this article be impartial, at least they didn't "sponsor" a random site to post the content, and they themselves post it on their blog. But it is very clear that it is hard to take anything written on the blog as truth, seeing as the solution is their own product...
There is a lot of money on the table for Backblaze or any other party to organize more user friendly software that fills the gap between sync and backup, preferably both. Dropbox syncs my iPhone photos and all machines seamlessly. Compared to Backblaze, my backup storage, I’m paying $ 11 for sync software that works and does iOS photos. The other $ 1 is storage and backup. Pretty clear win for software.
I agree, a merged dropbox with borg backup / time machine style deduped history going back as far as you want to pay for, with a resolution control. One example: Save every version for the past few days, every hour for the past month, every day for the past 3 months, every week until 6 months, every month for the past X years, etc.
Will also need something to control software that goes really wild with new versions, or some specialized rule sets for software repos, video editing, etc.
Ransomware & compliance escrow would also work great for this, you could have contracts that wont allow deletion after X months no matter what the other organization says to help prevent social engineering or account take over attacks.
Will also need something to control software that goes really wild with new versions, or some specialized rule sets for software repos, video editing, etc.
Ransomware & compliance escrow would also work great for this, you could have contracts that wont allow deletion after X months no matter what the other organization says to help prevent social engineering or account take over attacks.
The article makes a big deal about ransomware/old data restoration, with the implication that backblaze backup supports it while the others do not. This is untrue - I think all of the competitors mentioned support rollbacks to specific points in time.
They do make a good point about full computer backups though. Id like to see support for automatic Time Machine ingestion by these clouds
They do make a good point about full computer backups though. Id like to see support for automatic Time Machine ingestion by these clouds
Indeed, the content in those parts of the article is just flat wrong. I’m a longtime Backblaze customer and fan of their hard drive stats. This is the first time I’ve read something from them that felt at all “off”, let alone as wrong and gross as this.
I would take it as a pretty strong signal that their growth is slowing. Except that their Q4 was apparently good. The stock is suddenly down 15% in the last week, but I doubt they could or would react so quickly to that. It's still well above the 1mo and 6mo levels. IOW the recent uptick was a reaction to their Q4 but now it's regressing to their business as usual.
TLDR: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
TLDR: ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
> Object Lock serves as a digital vault, making data immutable for a specified period. It creates a virtual air gap...
"Virtual" and "air gap" is quite frankly an oxymoron. The two concepts are just at odds with one another. This article gives me misgivings about Backblaze as well.
"Virtual" and "air gap" is quite frankly an oxymoron. The two concepts are just at odds with one another. This article gives me misgivings about Backblaze as well.
It's poorly worded for sure. Perhaps the object lock servers:
* run on an immutable operating system,
* enforce strict (local) whitelist-based firewall rules,
* pull, not push, data from other servers,
* restrict remote administration to a physically isolated network,
* or disable remote administration entirely.
I feel like that's as close as you can get to the benefits of air gapped environments without the drawbacks of servers directly exposed to the network. Or, well, unless there happens to be a 0-day in the TCP/IP stack. It depends on the threat model I guess.
* run on an immutable operating system,
* enforce strict (local) whitelist-based firewall rules,
* pull, not push, data from other servers,
* restrict remote administration to a physically isolated network,
* or disable remote administration entirely.
I feel like that's as close as you can get to the benefits of air gapped environments without the drawbacks of servers directly exposed to the network. Or, well, unless there happens to be a 0-day in the TCP/IP stack. It depends on the threat model I guess.
It's hard to know, but since it's virtual, we know with certainty that there's no guarantee of any sort of "air" between the object locked data. Much less the total severance of any kind of plugged in network that "air gapped" implies.
Yeah I have the Dropbox packrat plan which I think covers basically everything discussed here.
On Christmas Day, iCloud drive's 2TB plan decided to roll back some of my important files to a version from mid October.
I know this because I am meticulous about backups and these particular files are encrypted private records. I don't trust software but I especially don't trust that backups will correctly handle sparse disk images since they are spread out over hundreds of files; so I always keep the output of mtree in that directory for the current version. I had checked the mtree file, edited some of the files contained therein, and regenerated it the night before; SOME but not all of the sparseimage subfiles had rolled back to October. Changed timestamps, changed hashes, the image did mount but the enclosed files were from October (they have date-stamped rows).
So when I went to open the disk image, the next day, and ran mtree to test the directory first, it noted the changes above.
I moved to icloud drive about two years ago. I'd previously had some problems with Apple's sync blowing away some notes in notes.app so when I moved everything from Dropbox (where my paid account for 7 years never lost or corrupted a file to my knowledge - and my knowledge is good because this mtree habit I just described goes back a decade!) to iCloud, I kept this habit up, and good thing.
To this day I don't know how it decided October or ended up replacing them. Maybe there was some local cache, I don't know. I did not revert the file in iCloud and nobody else has access to my account. Further, it only partially rolled the image back.
I had never had a problem up to that point, but I will say, with storage, once is too many times. Back to dropbox.
I know this because I am meticulous about backups and these particular files are encrypted private records. I don't trust software but I especially don't trust that backups will correctly handle sparse disk images since they are spread out over hundreds of files; so I always keep the output of mtree in that directory for the current version. I had checked the mtree file, edited some of the files contained therein, and regenerated it the night before; SOME but not all of the sparseimage subfiles had rolled back to October. Changed timestamps, changed hashes, the image did mount but the enclosed files were from October (they have date-stamped rows).
So when I went to open the disk image, the next day, and ran mtree to test the directory first, it noted the changes above.
I moved to icloud drive about two years ago. I'd previously had some problems with Apple's sync blowing away some notes in notes.app so when I moved everything from Dropbox (where my paid account for 7 years never lost or corrupted a file to my knowledge - and my knowledge is good because this mtree habit I just described goes back a decade!) to iCloud, I kept this habit up, and good thing.
To this day I don't know how it decided October or ended up replacing them. Maybe there was some local cache, I don't know. I did not revert the file in iCloud and nobody else has access to my account. Further, it only partially rolled the image back.
I had never had a problem up to that point, but I will say, with storage, once is too many times. Back to dropbox.
Apple has lost my data in iCloud Photo Library as well as in Contacts Sync. I don't trust that for anything important.
The ATP podcast was mentioning someone who had a similar issue.
Apples cloud is drippy.
Apples cloud is drippy.
Yeah. Weird paranoid habits massively saved me. I no longer trust icloud drive at all.
My backup discipline is excellent because back in the early 2000s we lost a drive which I had not been backing up and it had months of contract work on it; I ended up paying $2500 plus $30 per _CDROM_ burned for the content from that drive... it was just barely worth it.
My backup discipline is excellent because back in the early 2000s we lost a drive which I had not been backing up and it had months of contract work on it; I ended up paying $2500 plus $30 per _CDROM_ burned for the content from that drive... it was just barely worth it.
The backup philosophy I have is that each “thing” is a single point of failure.
In other words, iCloud is one “thing” even if it claims itself to have multiple versions/copies/backups.
But the scary thing about this is that it might have gone undetected- silently reverting a file and it not being noticed is death-tier horrifying.
In other words, iCloud is one “thing” even if it claims itself to have multiple versions/copies/backups.
But the scary thing about this is that it might have gone undetected- silently reverting a file and it not being noticed is death-tier horrifying.
These announcements on business limits have caused a lot of chaos at my workplace. People would abuse these unlimited plans and have terabytes of data on these services; IT put out an email to everyone to cut down to like 150gb. Even our own internal server is having issues with the filesystem filling up and people having to clear their directories or have their project be billed for more rack storage. It might be time to buy some stocks related to storage media, considering how much purchasing is probably about to happen this year from all these departments in all these businesses in the world today in need of storage space, although I guess I'm late on that looking at Hitachi's 5 year chart.
I use OneDrive on Mac and I find it a great tool. The bottom line is as a user I want two things:
* Enough storage at a reasonable price such that I "don't have to think about it"
* Some kind of online-aware virtual file system such that I can see my "online only" files right next to my "offline" files, and only download the online ones if I explictly download or try to access them.
I find many "hardcore" techy backup solutions recommended on HN and elsehwere miss this second bit. I don't particularly want to manage uploading a perfect byte-for-byte replica of my filesystem every month or whatever. I just want it to be magic. Perhaps occasionally I'll put things on my own external SSD. I guess if Microsoft data centers get nuked or whatever I'm SOL on the last 3 months of data updates. I don't really care. I just want the cloud to function as an extension of my local hard drive in the most seamless way possible.
* Enough storage at a reasonable price such that I "don't have to think about it"
* Some kind of online-aware virtual file system such that I can see my "online only" files right next to my "offline" files, and only download the online ones if I explictly download or try to access them.
I find many "hardcore" techy backup solutions recommended on HN and elsehwere miss this second bit. I don't particularly want to manage uploading a perfect byte-for-byte replica of my filesystem every month or whatever. I just want it to be magic. Perhaps occasionally I'll put things on my own external SSD. I guess if Microsoft data centers get nuked or whatever I'm SOL on the last 3 months of data updates. I don't really care. I just want the cloud to function as an extension of my local hard drive in the most seamless way possible.
Have you seen syncthing?
syncthing blows. Don't trust your data to it. Tons of posts on the forums about "out of sync" and no real answers other than "delete the database and start over". I've given syncthing a try over and over again for > 10 years and every time it fails to sync.
Use rsync.
Use rsync.
I've never had to delete a Syncthing database, but I have had issues where computers don't always see each other (for one thing, you need to run as root on Android or it can't discover computers using mDNS) and a constant stream of sync conflict files.
I don't know what you must be doing because I've been using it for years and haven't had any problems that weren't quickly solved
Syncthing doesn't have a DB? Are you thinking of Duplicati maybe?
> * Enough storage at a reasonable price such that I "don't have to think about it"
Sadly for me only iCloud offers this with their 50GB for $1 tier. I basically need cloud sync to be a USB stick that’s plugged into all my computers simultaneously.
Sadly for me only iCloud offers this with their 50GB for $1 tier. I basically need cloud sync to be a USB stick that’s plugged into all my computers simultaneously.
I've got a Nextcloud humming away in my attic. It gets backed up to my office systems. NC has a recycle bin too.
Self hosted is not for everyone but at what point is your stuff important enough for you to really take responsibility for it. Do you simply Dropbox or OneDrive or whatever or do you do it yourself and self host or get a family member/friend do it or engage someone to do it for you.
You do have choices. Even if you lack the skills to self host you can engage someone to set it up for you. You probably don't plumb your own bog 'n' bath and yet you own a toilet and bath/shower/whatever that works. A trade has fixed that up for you in return for some consideration.
So, do the calculus for yourself: How important is your data, what sort of losses if any are sustainable. What are the risks ... have you done a home fire risk assessment - do one, its not hard. Fire blanket in the kitchen (ban towels drying on the oven), one shot ladders (that sit in the bottom of a wardrobe - inform guests - make a joke of it) for upstairs bedrooms, foam fire extinguishers - one or more per floor. Plan for escape. £500 or so per five years is a very rough budget for hardware. By law you probably should also have battery backed, mains powered smoke detectors already, so I don't count that in the budget. If not, then get some and test them.
UPS ... get one, especially if your storage does not include a battery backed RAID controller. File systems are rubbish with holes in them. APC and others do several small units for home use with domestic plugs (in the UK we get our fearsome three pin plug sockets). Get PoE+ switches - Netgear and others do reasonably cheap switches. That smart doorbell really should be PoE powered with UPS backup ...
If you are reading HN then there is a good chance you are either an engineer of some sort or the sort of person who thinks like one. Once you have worked out the risks and costs and yes, some of those costs might include being kicked from here to tomorrow by a partner (where are my photos?), then you can create a plan. I'll leave it up to you how you squirrel away the costs but please ... pretty please ... do a proper plan for this sort of stuff and whilst you are at it do a reasonably wide risk assessment. You might want to cover "everything" as you might at work - it can be quite cathartic.
Self hosted is not for everyone but at what point is your stuff important enough for you to really take responsibility for it. Do you simply Dropbox or OneDrive or whatever or do you do it yourself and self host or get a family member/friend do it or engage someone to do it for you.
You do have choices. Even if you lack the skills to self host you can engage someone to set it up for you. You probably don't plumb your own bog 'n' bath and yet you own a toilet and bath/shower/whatever that works. A trade has fixed that up for you in return for some consideration.
So, do the calculus for yourself: How important is your data, what sort of losses if any are sustainable. What are the risks ... have you done a home fire risk assessment - do one, its not hard. Fire blanket in the kitchen (ban towels drying on the oven), one shot ladders (that sit in the bottom of a wardrobe - inform guests - make a joke of it) for upstairs bedrooms, foam fire extinguishers - one or more per floor. Plan for escape. £500 or so per five years is a very rough budget for hardware. By law you probably should also have battery backed, mains powered smoke detectors already, so I don't count that in the budget. If not, then get some and test them.
UPS ... get one, especially if your storage does not include a battery backed RAID controller. File systems are rubbish with holes in them. APC and others do several small units for home use with domestic plugs (in the UK we get our fearsome three pin plug sockets). Get PoE+ switches - Netgear and others do reasonably cheap switches. That smart doorbell really should be PoE powered with UPS backup ...
If you are reading HN then there is a good chance you are either an engineer of some sort or the sort of person who thinks like one. Once you have worked out the risks and costs and yes, some of those costs might include being kicked from here to tomorrow by a partner (where are my photos?), then you can create a plan. I'll leave it up to you how you squirrel away the costs but please ... pretty please ... do a proper plan for this sort of stuff and whilst you are at it do a reasonably wide risk assessment. You might want to cover "everything" as you might at work - it can be quite cathartic.
Why Nextcloud over something simpler like Syncthing?
I run several Nextclouds including one for safety critical docs for several 1000 people. I know NC quite well.
Ironically, I have a snag with my personal photos syncing from my phone which will probably involve some SQL but I did try to go off piste in a way that your average user doesn't.
NC is very reliable and since a few years ago, the phone clients have stabilized nicely. The desktop clients have been pretty decent for much longer.
Across the various systems I manage I think I've seen most or at least several corner cases. My home instance has few users with a large number of files. My wife's photo collection is legendary. The instance with the safety docs involves a lot (lot) of PDFs generated by a few people on PCs, that are shared with many tablet/phone based users over variably connected links. If the docs are not there, some things are not allowed to happen.
I've got some instances behind HA Proxy and some behind whatever MS's Azure proxy offering is called. One is behind Apache only and another nginx only but they both do have quite a lot of log file watcher (OK call it an application firewall) and network traffic analysers.
Syncthing has its place but I need rather more in most of these cases and NC has a lot of modules. For example the safety useful system has rather a lot of logging for doc creation, amendment and access. My life becomes briefly rather miserable if my wife's photos are not available for posting on FB. NC has an "impersonate user" thing which cuts through quite a lot of the IT to end user confusion. You can look at their account as they see it. I also have Mesh Central ...
Ironically, I have a snag with my personal photos syncing from my phone which will probably involve some SQL but I did try to go off piste in a way that your average user doesn't.
NC is very reliable and since a few years ago, the phone clients have stabilized nicely. The desktop clients have been pretty decent for much longer.
Across the various systems I manage I think I've seen most or at least several corner cases. My home instance has few users with a large number of files. My wife's photo collection is legendary. The instance with the safety docs involves a lot (lot) of PDFs generated by a few people on PCs, that are shared with many tablet/phone based users over variably connected links. If the docs are not there, some things are not allowed to happen.
I've got some instances behind HA Proxy and some behind whatever MS's Azure proxy offering is called. One is behind Apache only and another nginx only but they both do have quite a lot of log file watcher (OK call it an application firewall) and network traffic analysers.
Syncthing has its place but I need rather more in most of these cases and NC has a lot of modules. For example the safety useful system has rather a lot of logging for doc creation, amendment and access. My life becomes briefly rather miserable if my wife's photos are not available for posting on FB. NC has an "impersonate user" thing which cuts through quite a lot of the IT to end user confusion. You can look at their account as they see it. I also have Mesh Central ...
Maybe it offers not just a backup?
BTW Syncthing is not exactly a backup solution; it's a sync solution, with an ability to have staggered versions of changed files.
Something like Restic or Kopia is a proper backup solution, with encrypted versioned data good for off-premises storage, and an ability to mount a point-in-time backup.
BTW Syncthing is not exactly a backup solution; it's a sync solution, with an ability to have staggered versions of changed files.
Something like Restic or Kopia is a proper backup solution, with encrypted versioned data good for off-premises storage, and an ability to mount a point-in-time backup.
[deleted]
Microsoft calling OneDrive a backup and putting it alongside security features in Windows has always pissed me off.
In what way is OneDrive not categorically a backup of the files stored there?
As noted in the article, OneDrive acts as a file sync. It does have version history, but if the file is deleted locally, it will eventually be deleted from OneDrive (after a period of time).
A backup is a binary equivalent of all the source data. True backups cannot be modified, and exist as a point-in-time reference snapshot.
A backup is a binary equivalent of all the source data. True backups cannot be modified, and exist as a point-in-time reference snapshot.
> if the file is deleted locally, it will eventually be deleted from OneDrive (after a period of time).
Yes, all backups have retention periods. That doesn't make them not backups.
> True backups cannot be modified, and exist as a point-in-time reference snapshot.
OneDrive does keep point-in-time version history and allow you to access and restore, but not to modify, those point-in-time reference snapshots.
Yes, all backups have retention periods. That doesn't make them not backups.
> True backups cannot be modified, and exist as a point-in-time reference snapshot.
OneDrive does keep point-in-time version history and allow you to access and restore, but not to modify, those point-in-time reference snapshots.
> Yes, all backups have retention periods.
SpiderOak ONE doesn't:
https://spideroak.support/hc/en-us/articles/115001933406-The...
They keep the deleted files forever.
SpiderOak ONE doesn't:
https://spideroak.support/hc/en-us/articles/115001933406-The...
They keep the deleted files forever.
> Again, the Deleted Items bin is local to each device, so make sure you are looking in the bin for the device where your data was deleted.
> Since the files in the Deleted Items bin are still retained in storage, they count towards your storage total. To permanently remove items in the Deleted Items bin from your account, select the files and push Remove.
The default behaviour in MacOS for Trash is no automatic deletes, so I guess you get this forever backup so long as you don't turn on automatic deletes for Trash.
> Since the files in the Deleted Items bin are still retained in storage, they count towards your storage total. To permanently remove items in the Deleted Items bin from your account, select the files and push Remove.
The default behaviour in MacOS for Trash is no automatic deletes, so I guess you get this forever backup so long as you don't turn on automatic deletes for Trash.
Carbonite keeps two full backups. And deletes the oldest cycle after that.
Timemachine also keeps backups until you start running out of diskspace.
Neither service deletes files from your backups.
Timemachine also keeps backups until you start running out of diskspace.
Neither service deletes files from your backups.
Seems like you just described two scenarios where a deleted file would eventually fall out of the backup set.
It may eventually fall out. Not guaranteed to. Unlike OneDrive.
If you need to keep something indefinitely, you use a backup with an indefinite retention period. That doesn't mean OneDrive isn't a backup, any more than setting a retention period on your Veeam backups make those somehow not backups.
One example is:
OD uses stubs to save you local disk space. when you want the copy local you click it and it reaches out to the internet to get it....
If you lose the internet copy, you DONT HAVE a local copy... you only have a stub.
OD does not randomly replace files on your hard drive with stubs.
If you add sync to a folder that was originally created under a different account, it will use stubs by default and download on-demand (though you can override this). But the redundant storage of those files is not your problem, that's between OD and the other account.
If you add sync to a folder that was originally created under a different account, it will use stubs by default and download on-demand (though you can override this). But the redundant storage of those files is not your problem, that's between OD and the other account.
I an curious too since that's exactly how I use the product: to keep my documents safe. I always assumed OneDrive keeps a local copy AND sends another copy to the cloud.
My question was entirely rhetorical. If you save files to OneDrive, they are backed up, with complete version history through the retention period. You have a local copy and a copy in the cloud. I think peoples’ understanding of what these services actually do is very out of date.
I recently ran into a weird situation with offline OneDrive where I can open the file, but not move it into another folder... including the recycle bin !
Some stuff is cached locally other stuff might only be kept on the cloud. You can specify whether certain files or directories are cached locally or not iirc.
Well its a little misleading considering they also have Windows Backup which is actually a proper device backup service.
Onedrive seems to be a badly wrapped Sharepoint and is quite annoying.
Backblaze is cloud and suffers the major limitation of being expensive for an individual. The case for NAS for personal backup is getting stronger every day. For anything > 1TB, for personal backup or sync, a NAS is $400 investment whereas cloud would be $400 recurring cost which is ever increasing and has risks of ransomware etc.
The typcial NAS doesn't offer geo-redundancy. You can colocate it to get that, but that also significantly increases cost, which makes cloud competitive again.
If this is personal backup, you can usually find another tech-savvy friend who will co-locate a secondary NAS for free.
For a very long time neither did backblaze.
> For a very long time neither did backblaze.
Unless you live in a Backblaze data center, using Backblaze has always implied that your data is stored in at least two separate locations.
Unless you live in a Backblaze data center, using Backblaze has always implied that your data is stored in at least two separate locations.
It’s the same argument for the cloud. With Backblaze, I pay $x/month and someone else deals with OS/Software updates and hard drive failures. If I don’t outsource, I handle it myself for less.
It’s just a trade off based on how much time and comfort you have as a personal user.
It’s just a trade off based on how much time and comfort you have as a personal user.
Don't get me started on Dropbox web app... the worst cluster*uck of an user interface:
- super slow; scrolling often leaves you in a blank space for seconds when it's catching up; elements showing up on the page after you navigate there pushing things away from or under your cursor
- breadcrumbs in the folders sometimes showing, sometimes not
- different directory tree browsers in different parts of the app
- folder settings split between multiple different places. For something you have to go to Admin console, for something you have to go back to normal viewer
- multiple types of flash messages, showing after different actions, often doubling themselves
- actions in dropdown menus for the same thing ordered differently based on where you currently are
I'm so happy that we are migrating away to our own solution
- super slow; scrolling often leaves you in a blank space for seconds when it's catching up; elements showing up on the page after you navigate there pushing things away from or under your cursor
- breadcrumbs in the folders sometimes showing, sometimes not
- different directory tree browsers in different parts of the app
- folder settings split between multiple different places. For something you have to go to Admin console, for something you have to go back to normal viewer
- multiple types of flash messages, showing after different actions, often doubling themselves
- actions in dropdown menus for the same thing ordered differently based on where you currently are
I'm so happy that we are migrating away to our own solution
Why would you use the web app though?
As a Dropbox user of about 12 years, I started with the thick-client, but, working on 5 separate systems (work, home windows, home linux, home macbookAir, Travel NUC) - I just .. stopped installing the thick client. I'm 100% webapp user, even on the one (two?) systems where the thick client is present.
[deleted]
The web interface used to be so much better. Why does everything always experience bloat and enshittification over time? :(
The limitations of cloud drives, for me, is the simple fact that they are seriously restricted by any company with cybersecurity policies.
Our only choice is the lord and savior, Onedrive, since our BIG_COMPANY is all-in on Microsoft. S3 is allowed as well but that's mainly because it's used in so much other than file sharing.
Dropbox is the devil. Google drive is virus central. Backblaze, Box.com, and the rest aren't even on the radar, but blocked by category.
Our only choice is the lord and savior, Onedrive, since our BIG_COMPANY is all-in on Microsoft. S3 is allowed as well but that's mainly because it's used in so much other than file sharing.
Dropbox is the devil. Google drive is virus central. Backblaze, Box.com, and the rest aren't even on the radar, but blocked by category.
the problem is we all have macs with no hard drive space and we need thse services
I do not have a Mac anymore but I do have several computers and a phone and being able to access my documents from anywhere is very handy
Apple has iCloud natively that works mostly fine
The issue is... how do you backup iCloud when it gets larger than your mac's hard drive, because of the massive number of photos you took on your iPhone?
I’m not too sure. There exist tools that can export data so perhaps that process can be used. Otherwise, you probably need to figure it out one way or another. Knowing myself, I would destroy my own data with accidental deletion or removing a key disk before Apple does.
iCould is for syncing, not backup. Handy when you have multiple devices, but you should invest in a 3-2-1 solution. (which can be done easily by buying an external drive, and some space on another cloud provider). For better retention, get some software that can do snapshots.
Yeah. Backups are quite hard to maintain. Hetzner storage boxes are pretty good from what I’ve found. They get backed up and are easily available
2tb for $120 a year for the rest of your life. You might as well be paying the mob.
Perhaps. But it’s maybe cheaper than maintaining hardware life-term yourself. Disregarding control of your data
It is not at all cheaper and there's hardly any maintenance involved. In ten years you've spent $1200 on the same 2tb. You can get a 2tb portable SSD for about $100. You could have 20tb of storage amassed by then that you can either use outright or replace older drives with, assuming current prices somehow hold for 10 years.
Summary: This is an ad for Backblaze. It adds unlimited versioning backups for your Google Drive etc. Nothing in it was news, if you're already familiar with the difference.
> Both Google and Microsoft, leading providers in this space, have announced the discontinuation of their unlimited storage plans.
> Additionally, it’s essential to note that cloud drives, which are primarily sync services, do not offer comprehensive data protection.
There is no cloud. It's just other people's computers, and they don't care about your data except the parts useful to them.
Time to fire up the old RAID.
> Additionally, it’s essential to note that cloud drives, which are primarily sync services, do not offer comprehensive data protection.
There is no cloud. It's just other people's computers, and they don't care about your data except the parts useful to them.
Time to fire up the old RAID.
Or just the toaster dock and some bare drives.
Obligatory RAID is not a backup.
3-2-1 is a backup strategy.
3-2-1 is a backup strategy.
Counter: RAID is the backup between your other backups. A backup is, in the end, anything you turn to when you have some kind of failure. Which is appropriate depends on the type of failure. RAID is there for your hardware failures; "tape style" (how does one phrase this?) is there for your data deletion. (One could argue that a missing tine of the trident would be checksums, for data corruption)
Example: A small company with data they find important but it isn't a great volume and they don't have a huge budget. They do a backup of everything once every week or month (it doesn't matter).
Should a drive fail, the backups could be handy, but who wants to lose days of work? And so people turn to RAID.
Note that as your strategy/need evolves toward continual backups, backup and RAID begin to merge, expensively.
Example: A small company with data they find important but it isn't a great volume and they don't have a huge budget. They do a backup of everything once every week or month (it doesn't matter).
Should a drive fail, the backups could be handy, but who wants to lose days of work? And so people turn to RAID.
Note that as your strategy/need evolves toward continual backups, backup and RAID begin to merge, expensively.
No, RAID is just hardware redundancy. Backups cover more than just hardware failures, they also defend against accidental deletion, data corruption caused by an application or system error, and ransomware attacks.
Parity RAID disk setups have lost me more data then encrypted drives over the years. They seem to lead to eventual corruption and data loss, way earlier than straight doing nothing.
Hot take: I’d rather buy another set of disks than use raid (0). And have manual backup.
Just use syncthing ...
Was this a layup for the classic Dropbox comment? https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=9224
I really just want a nicer `borg-backup` that doesn't involve an SSH server. And to finally dust off my home server. And... and...
Restic supports a similar feature set to Borg (open source, locally encrypted backups, content-addressed snapshots instead separate incremental+full backups, etc) but also works with dumb file hosts (S3, Backblaze B2, a local drive, etc).
Indeed, and it's a powerful combination. With "autorestic" as a bit of a front end, I have backups going to a local SSD, home NAS, and Backblaze B2. My B2 storage is under 200 GB so far, but has also cost basically nothing. For that, I have at least some chance of getting data back if the house burns down.
Syncthing on at least one server with zfs or btrfs snapshots
For some use-cases ArDrive could be a reasonable alternative.
Pay once, store forever.
https://ardrive.arweave.dev
Pay once, store forever.
https://ardrive.arweave.dev
I currently have 2.2 TB of personal data on my NAS. If I wanted to get it all into the cloud, ArDrive is quoting me $28,902. It will break even against Backblaze B2 in 133 years.
> It will break even against Backblaze B2 in 133 years.
I'd say an even better comparison is glacier deep archive. Let's say an average of one retrieval per decade. $2.18 per month for storage, $210 per retrieval (which is 90% egress cost that you might be able to avoid), 600 years at current pricing.
I'd say an even better comparison is glacier deep archive. Let's say an average of one retrieval per decade. $2.18 per month for storage, $210 per retrieval (which is 90% egress cost that you might be able to avoid), 600 years at current pricing.
Interesting idea, but 1TB of storage would cost $13k!
One day a ticket was sent my way. A customer complained that some files were missing. Once I got logs from that customer's computer; it was clear, someone, or something, deleted those files... Four months ago.
A recent cost-savings initiative bumped the deleted file retention to ~3 months. The retention window had come and gone, and we deleted the customers' files from their recycle bin.
My response was basically: We need a longer retention plan if we're going to call ourselves "backup." The point of "backup" is to restore in cases like this, where someone (or something) accidentally deleted files.
I even had that lesson with some important music files. I shared them with the person who originally recorded the files, and they dragged and dropped them out of the shared folder. It wasn't until a few years later that I realized I needed to restore them. Because I had the VIP flag, I was able to restore them.