BackBlaze - Business Options Available
-
@JaredBusch said:
Crypto is not a problem. you simply restore a prior version.
Sure you can restore the files, But that mean waiting for the Veeam Zip backup to come back to the local network before performing other restores from that specific file.
-
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Crypto is not a problem. you simply restore a prior version.
Sure you can restore the files, But that mean waiting for the Veeam Zip backup to come back to the local network before performing other restores from that specific file.
And so?
The entire point of this thread is an offsite backup a solution. You will always be waiting if you need to resort to it for restoral. This is not a thread about general backup or what is best for crypto recovery.
Offsite backup should never replace onsite.
-
@JaredBusch said:
@Dashrender said:
@JaredBusch said:
Crypto is not a problem. you simply restore a prior version.
Sure you can restore the files, But that mean waiting for the Veeam Zip backup to come back to the local network before performing other restores from that specific file.
And so?
The entire point of this thread is an offsite backup a solution. You will always be waiting if you need to resort to it for restoral. This is not a thread about general backup or what is best for crypto recovery.
Offsite backup should never replace onsite.
You're right, it's not about general backup or crypto recovery, but I think crypto recovery should be part of the consideration. Because of the SMB/NFS type sharing crypto badness makes it more likely you'll have to resort to your offsite backups versus other options you could implement.
Isn't it equally important to setup your environment to use the quickest backup available assuming that doing so doesn't drive the price over the edge, etc?
-
@NetworkNerd said:
The web portal for restores is easy to use. The only thing missing from Backblaze in my opinion is the ability to store file revisions as well as Crashplan does (allowing specific retention period for revisions to be backed up). That is why I like Crashplan better for some use cases (i.e. backing up the server with all of our enterprise software). I must say Backblaze has worked very well for us thus far based on our use case.
Can you explain this a little more? About the revisions?
-
@NetworkNerd said:
We have around 30 pcs in the account now, mostly C-level and outside sales computers on which you are most likely going to find local files of a very important nature.
See @scottalanmiller, it;s not just me.
-
@aaron said:
(Win -- not server OS -- & Mac)
How does it back up servers?
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said:
The Backblaze backup client for personal backup and business is not meant to backup servers, it's targeted for individual computers.
Is it allowed to backup servers?
We used to do a regular backup, but also had CrashPlan running on the servers. For $10 a month it was a nice way to do versioning offsite.
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said:
@BRRABill No it will not install on a server OS.
I am curious as to why not... ? Some of us prefer to use Server OSes as our daily drivers. Why treat the server OS any differently than the client OS?
-
@dafyre said:
@aaron said:
@BRRABill No it will not install on a server OS.
I am curious as to why not... ? Some of us prefer to use Server OSes as our daily drivers. Why treat the server OS any differently than the client OS?
To prevent abuse. Though it's a poor man's way of doing so.
-
-
@Dashrender said:
@dafyre said:
@aaron said:
@BRRABill No it will not install on a server OS.
I am curious as to why not... ? Some of us prefer to use Server OSes as our daily drivers. Why treat the server OS any differently than the client OS?
To prevent abuse. Though it's a poor man's way of doing so.
Yup, no effective way to use a desktop for huge storage or many systems.
-
In some environments, the server might have less data than a desktop. Especially if you factor in pictures/videos/music.
Now, granted this would bolster the argumetn of "why do they have a serer, just use the cloud", but it's out there.
It's a money thing, I am sure. Businesses have deeper pockets and can afford it.
Looks like CrashPlan is still the way to go on the server side. But I will definitely look into BackBlaze for my desktop users.
-
@BRRABill said:
In some environments, the server might have less data than a desktop. Especially if you factor in pictures/videos/music.
"In some" and "can" aren't the issues. It's what is the realistic sizes that is the issues. Servers can hold data for hundreds or thousands of users. Desktops cannot. Yes, one user can store a lot of stuff. And one server can store very little. But the concern is only the use case where many, many users have shared storage on a single server.
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said:
@dafyre said:
@aaron said:
@BRRABill No it will not install on a server OS.
I am curious as to why not... ?The other guys are correct in why server OS isn't supported by the backup client. It's a business decision. Since the original Backblaze backup product offers unlimited product at only $50/year, we need to make sure that there is enough revenue coming in from license sales to make up for larger-volume customers. Supporting servers would allows folks to buy 1 license for the server and back up multiple machines to that server, then back it up to Backblaze. That's simply not a viable strategy for us with the online backup product. However, Backblaze B2, will allow you to do exactly that from Windows Server, Linux or any favorite system that can make SSL requests over 443.
I think it's similar to a local pizza shop buffet where I like going for lunch. Sometimes I eat a couple slices, sometimes more. They just won't give me a whole pizza or a specific slice on demand, to them it evens out in the long run at that price point.
Ok, yeah, that makes sense.
-
@dafyre said:
@aaron said:
@dafyre said:
@aaron said:
@BRRABill No it will not install on a server OS.
I am curious as to why not... ?The other guys are correct in why server OS isn't supported by the backup client. It's a business decision. Since the original Backblaze backup product offers unlimited product at only $50/year, we need to make sure that there is enough revenue coming in from license sales to make up for larger-volume customers. Supporting servers would allows folks to buy 1 license for the server and back up multiple machines to that server, then back it up to Backblaze. That's simply not a viable strategy for us with the online backup product. However, Backblaze B2, will allow you to do exactly that from Windows Server, Linux or any favorite system that can make SSL requests over 443.
I think it's similar to a local pizza shop buffet where I like going for lunch. Sometimes I eat a couple slices, sometimes more. They just won't give me a whole pizza or a specific slice on demand, to them it evens out in the long run at that price point.
Ok, yeah, that makes sense.
It makes a bit of sense when phrased that way, but it is also trivial to exploit if so desired.
I can always just share a single folder out with a Windows desktop client and use that like a NAS as my shared drive target for the backup solution.
I've already stated in this thread how I abuse CrashPlan with a symlinked folder in Windows. CrashPlan at least expects this to happen as they have basic "use at your own risk" directions for it on their website.
-
@JaredBusch said:
I've already stated in this thread how I abuse CrashPlan with a symlinked folder in Windows. CrashPlan at least expects this to happen as they have basic "use at your own risk" directions for it on their website.
I think what they are saying is that BackBlaze has thought about it, and decided that doesn't make sense for them.
CrashPlan thinks it DOES make sense for them, hence they allow it.
I think it's similar to the OneDrive storage issue. Sure, there are people who use "unlimited" data storage to the max, but probably a vast majority do not.
Using the buffet example, sure there are people like Homer Simpson who had to take the buffet place to court because he didn't have enough food. But most other people eat below the break even line.
-
I've got to say I'm impressed with the customer service so far. I signed up for the B2 beta and downloaded the cli tool from the site. I had an issue and opened a chat on the site. Nathan was helpful and ended up knowing what the issue was.
