BackBlaze - Business Options Available
-
Of course this opens you to a cryptolocker problem.
-
Your NAS would be open to that by the nature of being able to be linked in this way.
-
@scottalanmiller said:
Your NAS would be open to that by the nature of being able to be linked in this way.
Yeah I suppose so.
Best to have a dedicated account on that share that has write ability and don't log in anywhere I possible as that user...
The backup software runs as that user... The link could be setup with a read only account.
-
Crypto is not a problem. you simply restore a prior version.
-
We use Backblaze for Business and have for a couple of years now (the domain license that Aaron mentions). I had been using it at home on my wife's computer (2 internal drives and an external HD backed up for $50 per year) when I found out they had a business option. 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. It definitely works really well, and I do like the alerts for when machines have not backed up in X number of days. You get a weekly alert for all computers in the account telling you the last backup of each machine, how much data may be left to backup based on change rates, etc.
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.
I am definitely curious about B2 like others here.
-
@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.
