BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan
-
Can this delay in scanning for changes be eliminated or at least shortened.
-
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@ChristopherBB said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@aaron @BBigford
Under the "Continuous" backup schedule setting (the default), the Backblaze software will automatically index the computer for new or changed files roughly once every 1-2 hours, depending on the system configuration. Following the completion of each indexing cycle, the Backblaze software will upload all the new or changed files that were just indexed. Once a file has been uploaded, it can take 1-2 hours for the file to appear and be available for restore through the Backblaze website.
So, if I read this right.... with a 1-2 hour upload cycle and a 1-2 hour propagation cycle the results should be...
Zero to a little more than two hours before a file gets backed up (zero if it is saved and the run happens immediately, two hours plus if the file gets created the instant that the last run stops, the run is set to two hours and there is a bit to upload causing it to not be uploaded immediately.
<snip>This is the way CrashPlan works as well. In that you tell it to back up every X (default is 1, I think), and then it backs up any files that have changed.
-
Question for @ChristopherBB -- Does the Backblaze backup client have the option to back up to a local drive or a USB drive as well as to your servers?
-
@dafyre said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
Question for @ChristopherBB -- Does the Backblaze backup client have the option to back up to a local drive or a USB drive as well as to your servers?
If it does, that is very new.
-
Hi.
I looked at CrashPlan and BackBlaze years ago.
CrashPlan, I dropped because of the requirement for Java on the end clients. It might be the most amazing tool in the world but Java sucks, so when choosing which to go for, I went with BackBlaze.
I've got people using the home & business backup of Backblaze, no problems or complaints so far. For 1-2 years now.
By default, the Backblaze client throttles it's own speed, but in the client you can turn off the throttle and let it use as much as you want if you prefer. So if speed of upload is a concern, have a look in the client settings.
@dafyre said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
Does the Backblaze backup client have the option to back up to a local drive or a USB drive as well as to your servers?
Nope, the BackBlaze client is there purely to upload & download from BackBlaze servers. Which I prefer because it means their focus is on making that feature work rather than other bits.
-
@BBigford said
Prefer to leave your apps open, lock your computer, and go home for the weekend? No backup is taking place.
Don't machines get rebooted for patching & updates out of office hours?
-
I wonder if @aaron and @ChristopherBB have relayed on the Java issue to BB? I'm sure product teams would love to hear that them avoiding Java and using a native tool set alone is a cause for customer acquisition. That's a metric or anecdote that they would love to have in their collection, I'm sure.
-
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
I wonder if @aaron and @ChristopherBB have relayed on the Java issue to BB? I'm sure product teams would love to hear that them avoiding Java and using a native tool set alone is a cause for customer acquisition. That's a metric or anecdote that they would love to have in their collection, I'm sure.
No no. They use it on their marketing already
https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-backup.html
Native Software
Java is responsible for 91%* of security attacks. Backblaze's code is native to Mac and PC and doesn't use Java.Do I want to support a company who does not use Java? Absolutely. Until CrashPlan changes their app, they won't get clients from my end.
-
@Breffni-Potter BackBlaze seems to be better but I am sticking to CrashPlan due to the family plan. 10 computer for 13.99 is hard to beat.
-
@aaronstuder said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@Breffni-Potter BackBlaze seems to be better but I am sticking to CrashPlan due to the family plan. 10 computer for 13.99 is hard to beat.
But I'd question why they are much cheaper than BackBlaze.
Either BackBlaze just want more money or CrashPlan are cutting corners somewhere.
For me, cloud backup is insurance against either my stupidity, theft/fire/flood. I prefer spending a bit more and not having to worry about it but to each their own.
-
@Breffni-Potter said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@aaronstuder said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@Breffni-Potter BackBlaze seems to be better but I am sticking to CrashPlan due to the family plan. 10 computer for 13.99 is hard to beat.
But I'd question why they are much cheaper than BackBlaze.
Either BackBlaze just want more money or CrashPlan are cutting corners somewhere.
For me, cloud backup is insurance against either my stupidity, theft/fire/flood. I prefer spending a bit more and not having to worry about it but to each their own.
Or CP has some brilliant means of making the backups cost less. I doubt that they do, just saying it's a possibility.
-
It's possible that the family plan has shown that statistically people back up only so much "per family." These plans of all types are all about stats. Any individual might end up costing the vendor money, but on average they make money.
-
Why does everyone keep complaining about CrashPlan and Java? Java is not installed on any Windows based system directly. If it uses it under the hood, I would not care. There is nothing to maintain or update.
-
On the same note, it does require java on Linux boxes, but it works perfectly with Java from the repos. So it stays part of the base update process anyway.
-
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
It's possible that the family plan has shown that statistically people back up only so much "per family." These plans of all types are all about stats. Any individual might end up costing the vendor money, but on average they make money.
Right, I am only backing up 5 computer, about 500GB-ish.
That would cost me $25 on BB.
-
@aaronstuder said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
It's possible that the family plan has shown that statistically people back up only so much "per family." These plans of all types are all about stats. Any individual might end up costing the vendor money, but on average they make money.
Right, I am only backing up 5 computer, about 500GB-ish.
That would cost me $25 on BB.
I'm sure that CP has really good statistics on how a family plan alters the average "per machine" backup amounts.
-
@scottalanmiller Right, if everyone was using many TB's of data it would never be profitable.
-
@aaronstuder said in BackBlaze vs. CrashPlan:
@scottalanmiller Right, if everyone was using many TB's of data it would never be profitable.
Yeah. they know that almost never do more than one or two family members keep a lot of data. Like in my family, if we needed to save all of our family videos we are going to save them all from one computer. Letting each of us back up our own machines won't significantly increase the amount that we back up total, it just makes it more convenient. CP probably makes extra money on that plan.
-
@scottalanmiller I guess I could backup my parents\grandparents to my computer, and just backup my one computer.... Hm....
-
On second thought, then you lose the versioning on each PC. No thanks!
