Backblaze takes on Amazon S3 with dirt-cheap data storage for developers
-
My biggest concern for offsite backups is simply gaining access to the data in case of the backed up system's failure. How do you get access to the data?
-
but you can't use backblaze on servers can you?
-
@hubtechagain said:
but you can't use backblaze on servers can you?
I think you are thinking of the BackBlaze backup product. This is their S3 competitor and doesn't run "on" anything. It's a storage product.
-
@anonymous said:
0.005 cents a gigabyte!
That's really quite an amazing price. Anything like ingress or egress costs to catch you like Glacier has?
-
@Dashrender said:
My biggest concern for offsite backups is simply gaining access to the data in case of the backed up system's failure. How do you get access to the data?
This isn't a backup product. This is a storage product. B2 is a direct competitor for S3. Even the name is similar.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That's really quite an amazing price. Anything like ingress or egress costs to catch you like Glacier has?
Free Upload. $0.05/GB Download
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That's really quite an amazing price. Anything like ingress or egress costs to catch you like Glacier has?
Free Import / $0.05/GB Download
That makes it far more of a Glacier competitor than S3, I think.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
That makes it far more of a Glacier competitor than S3, I think.
No..... You can access you data instantly, and according to the article it is much cheaper then Glacier.
-
@anonymous said:
@scottalanmiller said:
That makes it far more of a Glacier competitor than S3, I think.
No..... You can access you data instantly, and according to the article it is much cheaper then Glacier.
$.05 per GB download isn't cheap for live storage usage.
-
Glacier, for example, is $0.007 per GB to store and free to download and upload costs $.05 per 1,000 requests, which isn't too bad. You pay to store, not to recover, which is nice.
