BackBlaze B2 competitors
-
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
For business backups, Spideroak starts at $90/mo. That's a lot of Glacier.
About 8TB. But SpiderOak would be "unlimited" for those 10 users.
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
Oh, DropBox for Business with unlimited isn't $12.50, it's $60/mo then $12.50 for each additional user over 5.
5.4TB, but "unlimited" <<< always questionable.
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
I wanted to store about 1.8TB. Glacier was $0.011/gb so about $20 we'll say. Dropbox Business is $12.50/m and just says "as much space as needed", whatever that means.
Or BackBlaze Business at $50/year ($4.17/m-ish) with "unlimited" data.
BBB requires that you store the data locally, so that's not an option, it's not comparable to B2. Totally different use cases, which is why there are two price points from the same vendor. B2 is archival like Glacier, BBB is backup (enforced.)
1.8TB on Glacier: $12.91
On B2: $9.20
Dropbox: $60
Spideroak: $90Glacier seems pretty competitive even in the example
But B2 is the best.Who says I would buy the "enterprise" or "business" plans anyway? :cartwheel:
The boogeyman will never know!
I could send all company backups to a single store, then use a free backup tool/sync tool to send the data to the boss's home computer. Then he can use his personal backup account
-
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
For business backups, Spideroak starts at $90/mo. That's a lot of Glacier.
About 8TB. But SpiderOak would be "unlimited" for those 10 users.
Maybe, but still limited to users.
-
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
I could send all company backups to a single store, then use a free backup tool/sync tool to send the data to the boss's home computer. Then he can use his personal backup account
In theory, but you'd likely have technical issues, you'd definitely have no recourse in case of failure, might be cut off anytime and are relying on not paying the bills, rather than getting something cheap, if that makes sense. You still "owe" the money, even if the vendor doesn't know about it.
And do you really want customers that are willing to steal from their vendors? You are one of their vendors, remember.
-
I think the conversation can't conclude unless we discuss the differences between archival, backup, and cloud sync.
Depending on what's needed, "archival" storage is not a "per user" issue. We need to archive media and project files and business compliance docs. Not really a user issue, and no need for a local copy.
The solution needs to be safe and secure, and not go cancelling around account due to inactivity or any such shenanigans.For workstation backups, I rather like Crashplan. Unlimited data, near real time backup, individual file restore, Linux support, etc. Around $9.99/m per user for Business.
So we hit that same $100/m mark for 10 users, but with an unlimited plan, it ain't bad.For cloud sync, well I haven't found a favorite yet. I liked MediaFire and had 1TB for about $2.80 a month until they killed the desktop app entirely. Then I went to O365 personal for $9 and and get 1TB.
None of these services will give all that much in terms of TBs. -
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
I could send all company backups to a single store, then use a free backup tool/sync tool to send the data to the boss's home computer. Then he can use his personal backup account
In theory, but you'd likely have technical issues, you'd definitely have no recourse in case of failure, might be cut off anytime and are relying on not paying the bills, rather than getting something cheap, if that makes sense. You still "owe" the money, even if the vendor doesn't know about it.
And do you really want customers that are willing to steal from their vendors? You are one of their vendors, remember.
I would feel really good about myself figuring out this "free" solution
-
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
The synology unit that we have apparently has this functionality built in.
I'm like 99.999% sure of it.
Still room for error.
-
@scottalanmiller said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
Spideroak doesn't appear to release pricing. Nothing on their site talks about how much it costs. Just trials. That makes me very, very wary,
Are you also hunting wabbits?
-
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
I think the conversation can't conclude unless we discuss the differences between archival, backup, and cloud sync.
That's true. My quick thoughts..
Archival: Storage that is pure storage, and independent of any other system (S3, Glacier, B2, etc.) A backup system would send backups to these platforms, but they themselves are not backups. It's a building block of a solution, not a solution itself. It's just storage.
Backup: A system that actively handles taking a backup and restoring it. (Unitrends, Veeam, Storagecraft, Vembu, Datto) Systems that think in terms of backups, rather than in terms of storage.
Sync: System that takes a copy of what exists in a user location and copies it to other location(s), possibly to a central storage location, possibly only to one or more end points. Dropbox, OneDrive, Box. Not a backup system as there is no decoupling.
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@DustinB3403 Here's some other people with similar offerings. https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html
disclaimer: I work for Backblaze and am totally biased.
Thanks @aaron and no problem, I'm trying to push for BB, just need to see the competition. The boss wants proof that you guys are the best value for our dollar.
-
I don't work at BB but I like their solution a lot. Good company with awesome pricing and the ability to use it from the command line is so easy. We just push backups via script.
-
Am I right on the pricing? The B2 product (business use) is $.005/GB with Glacier being $0.011 and S3 being $0.028?
If so, what does S3 or Glacier offer that B2 doesn't in terms of price/features? Why not just go with B2 based on price alone? If $0.005 is true, it's the cheapest cloud storage I've seen so far in the per gig pricing space.
-
@guyinpv I think you are right, S3 for example though isn't just "storage space". It's often an entire platform to do all kinds of things with.
Which is just from memory, I have to do some more digging in on it. But It's super cheap for compute and storage.
@aaron with BB is the platform just storage, or is there compute resources too?
-
This post is deleted! -
@aaron said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@aaron with BB is the platform just storage, or is there compute resources too?
B2 is storage only, not compute. But S3 doesn't compute either (at least how I've used it). I thought EC2 is what does Amazon's computing.
The trick is that if you have servers on Amazon, EC2 etc, and also buy S3 storage, you get wicked fast gigabit bandwidth between storage and servers on the backend.
Doing the same project between EC2 and some other cloud provider, you lose a ton of speed. -
@aaron said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@aaron with BB is the platform just storage, or is there compute resources too?
B2 is storage only, not compute. But S3 doesn't compute either (at least how I've used it). I thought EC2 is what does Amazon's computing.
That is what I thought, we absolutely do not need any compute resources. I am just trying to determine why we might ever consider paying something like 400% more.
Which we just need off-site data storage.
-
@guyinpv said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@aaron said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@aaron with BB is the platform just storage, or is there compute resources too?
B2 is storage only, not compute. But S3 doesn't compute either (at least how I've used it). I thought EC2 is what does Amazon's computing.
The trick is that if you have servers on Amazon, EC2 etc, and also buy S3 storage, you get wicked fast gigabit bandwidth between storage and servers on the backend.
Doing the same project between EC2 and some other cloud provider, you lose a ton of speed.That's very true. You always want the storage provider that is on your same platform, if that is an option.
Should be 10Gig or higher on EC2, actually.
-
@aaron said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@aaron with BB is the platform just storage, or is there compute resources too?
B2 is storage only, not compute. But S3 doesn't compute either (at least how I've used it). I thought EC2 is what does Amazon's computing.
Correct, S3 is just like B2. EC2 is the IaaS platform.
-
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@guyinpv I think you are right, S3 for example though isn't just "storage space". It's often an entire platform to do all kinds of things with.
Which is just from memory, I have to do some more digging in on it. But It's super cheap for compute and storage.
@aaron with BB is the platform just storage, or is there compute resources too?
BB and S3 are storage platforms. EC2 is cloud computing. EC2 and S3 are hosted in the same datacenters on the same network, but are otherwise unrelated entities and concepts.
-
@BRRABill said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
@DustinB3403 said in BackBlaze B2 competitors:
The synology unit that we have apparently has this functionality built in.
I'm like 99.999% sure of it.
Still room for error.
I've confirmed our Synology unit has the capability for this, just wanted to schedule a call with a tech and separate (living breathing) sales person to confirm details.
@aaron do you guys do calls?
