Photo Backups

eoren1 · August 22, 2012

I saw that Dan. They also list Miller's which is a solid lab.

For what I (now) use Smugmug for, my current setup is fine. That being said, it is just a repository for kid images that the grandparents can look at and I don't try to sell anything on it. I have moved forward with more powerful implementations for selling my landscape work and am getting ready to go to a truly 'responsive' site that adjusts to the screen of a device. The web is rapidly moving there but, again, Smugmug is stuck in 2+ year old layouts.

I recently checke and, for some reason, I can't downgrade from my Power to a Basic account. May need to look into that and save the $20 per year. Heck, with Amazon's new Glacier system, I may just move all photos there (the main benefit of Smug now is online backup of processed images).

I'm really surprised that Schmoo or other Smugmug Heroes have note added their thoughts to this thread since it began...

Dan7312 · August 22, 2012

Glacier is inexpensive, a terabyte for $10 a month. But it is an archival storage system and retrieving anything takes hours, I think Amazon is saying 4 or more. So for long term storage it's a winner, but not for hosting. BTW cloudberrylab.com will be supporting it soon so I do plan on using it for archival storage.

eoren1 wrote: »

May need to look into that and save the $20 per year. Heck, with Amazon's new Glacier system, I may just move all photos there (the main benefit of Smug now is online backup of processed images).

Andy · August 22, 2012

Dan7312 wrote: »

Glacier is inexpensive, a terabyte for $10 a month.

But why would you choose Glacier if Backblaze is so much less expensive and so much more easy to use and retrieve files

Dan7312 · August 22, 2012

Geographic and facility redundant storage of archives and annual durability of 99.999999999%. i.e. you are paranoid about long term storage. I'm pretty sure Backblaze is a single storage facility and doesn't meet Amazon's spec's.

It's similar to Amazon S3, which stores files in three geographically separate locations, but it is less than 1/10 the cost. If you are using Amazon S3 to store files but don't need to host for immediate web access Glacier is much less costly.

Also Backblaze is replication backup, if you are off line for over 30 days or delete something locally Backblaze deletes it. Glacier is archival, it is stored until you delete from Glacier.

The only reason it's hard to use Glacier is that no software supports it yet, but that is coming.

But for a lot of uses Backblaze is sufficient.

Andy wrote: »

But why would you choose Glacier if Backblaze is so much less expensive and so much more easy to use and retrieve files

eoren1 · August 22, 2012

I didn't mean to take this thread in a tangent. Backup solutions can be discussed elsewhere.

jfriend · August 22, 2012

Dan7312 wrote: »

Geographic and facility redundant storage of archives and annual durability of 99.999999999%. i.e. you are paranoid about long term storage. I'm pretty sure Backblaze is a single storage facility and doesn't meet Amazon's spec's.

It's similar to Amazon S3, which stores files in three geographically separate locations, but it is less than 1/10 the cost. If you are using Amazon S3 to store files but don't need to host for immediate web access Glacier is much less costly.

Also Backblaze is replication backup, if you are off line for over 30 days or delete something locally Backblaze deletes it. Glacier is archival, it is stored until you delete from Glacier.

The only reason it's hard to use Glacier is that no software supports it yet, but that is coming.

But for a lot of uses Backblaze is sufficient.

If your computer is offline for 30 days, Backblaze does NOT remove anything from your backup. Backblaze deletes files from the backup in two circumstances:

1) When your computer is regularly connected to Backblaze and the file has been removed from your system for 30 days. Then, Backblaze assumes that you've deleted it locally so it removes it from the backup.

2) If you are backing up a removable external drive and your system is in contact with Backblaze and that external drive is detached from your system for 30 days, then Backblaze will remove the files on the external drives from your backup. I can see how this might be a problem for both Backblaze and for the customer. For the customer, if you want things backed up from external drives, then you have to keep them connected to your computer that is running Backblaze. That's just how they work. For Backblaze, they have to have some way of knowing when data is no longer needing to be backed up so they can recover the space for files that the customer no longer has. It's part of their economic model that they need to be somewhat efficient with this and not just store things forever that your Backblaze once backed up. So, they don't have a good way of knowing when data on external drives is still really there or not. They picked a 30 day policy.

If your computer is offline for a long time (30 days, 60 days, etc...), nothing is removed from your backup as long as you keep your Backblaze current. So ... you can shut down your computer and go on vacation for as long as you want and nothing will be removed from your Backblaze backup. The removal issue is only for external drives and only when you are regularly connected to Backblaze and the external drive is NOT connected any more. The details are spelled out here: https://help.backblaze.com/entries/20200433-backing-up-external-hard-drives.

I will ask the moderators to move this backup discussion to a new thread.

Dan7312 · August 23, 2012

I don't think it has always worked like that, leaving your computer off line for longer than 30 days, at least when I tried it out a few years ago it didn't seem to, so that's a significant improvement.

But it does delete backup files after 30 days when you delete them on your system. And when you change a file on your system you lose the old version after 30 days.

The external drive thing is a complication, but I don't think they drop backups of disconnected drives because of technical issues, they're just trying to minimize how much they backup. They also don't backup network attached storage either, I would guess for the same reason.

I'm sure that limiting what they keep in backup has a lot to do with the incredible low pricing they have.

Backblaze is a really good solution, it's just not an "archive" type solution if that's what you are looking for.

Even pricing wise Glacier may prove to be a more economical solution. If you have, say, 3 computers at home with a total of less than a 500GB of data between them. Backblaze storage costs for this would be $4x12x3 or $144 a year vs. about $60 for Glacier. Of course there is no software at present to use Glacier this way, but just comparing storage costs.

So I think Glacier really is interesting and to add to the interest I wonder if Microsoft's Azure will offer archival storage at competing prices.

jfriend wrote: »

If your computer is offline for 30 days, Backblaze does NOT remove anything from your backup. Backblaze deletes files from the backup in two circumstances:

jfriend · August 23, 2012

Dan7312 wrote: »

I don't think it has always worked like that, leaving your computer off line for longer than 30 days, at least when I tried it out a few years ago it didn't seem to, so that's a significant improvement.

But it does delete backup files after 30 days when you delete them on your system. And when you change a file on your system you lose the old version after 30 days.

The external drive thing is a complication, but I don't think they drop backups of disconnected drives because of technical issues, they're just trying to minimize how much they backup. They also don't backup network attached storage either, I would guess for the same reason.

I'm sure that limiting what they keep in backup has a lot to do with the incredible low pricing they have.

Backblaze is a really good solution, it's just not an "archive" type solution if that's what you are looking for.

Even pricing wise Glacier may prove to be a more economical solution. If you have, say, 3 computers at home with a total of less than a 500GB of data between them. Backblaze storage costs for this would be $4x12x3 or $144 a year vs. about $60 for Glacier. Of course there is no software at present to use Glacier this way, but just comparing storage costs.

So I think Glacier really is interesting and to add to the interest I wonder if Microsoft's Azure will offer archival storage at competing prices.

No solution that doesn't charge per GB is going to archive old versions of things that you aren't keeping on your own hard drives forever. There are just too many circumstances where this costs them way too much on a fixed price. Those solutions can work economically for the vendor if you pay per GB you store.

Backblaze is a great deal for me because I have 1.2TB backed up for $50/yr (that would probably cost me at least triple on Glacier). I'm not the average customer of Backblaze or their business model probably wouldn't work - I'm sure their business relies on a bell curve of disk usage (and falling storage costs over time) and I just happen to be at one end of the bell curve. It is not an archival solution. It's a replicated backup solution.

Backblaze doesn't back up network attached storage for the same reason. It jeopardizes their disk usage model that enables the low price they have. It's way too easy for a $50/mo customer to be attached to multiple network attached storage drives that are hundreds of terabytes. This might even be accidental (they don't even intend to back up those drives). So, to allow them to make money at the low price they have, they have to draw boundaries around what they will back up. That makes sense to me and I get it. A service that charges per GB of storage does not care where the data comes from and does not need to implement these types of restrictions. In fact, for them, the more data they can find to back up, the more storage they get to charge for. Completely different business models.

If you are a below average storage user, then you want a pay per GB model where you pay only for what you use. If you are a higher than average storage user, then you want a fixed price model where the other users on the service are essentially subsidizing you. If you want true archiving, then you will want an archive service which BackBlaze is not.

Disclaimer: I've recommended BackBlaze to many, many people and have been responsible for many new customers joining their service so that is one reason why I might still be a profitable customer for them.

Dan7312 · August 23, 2012

Crashplan's fixed price plans are unlimited storage and keep all versions of files and deleted files backed up forever.

Some of CrashplanPro's plans are fixed price too, and they also keep deleted and all versions forever.

I don't think any other vendor who does fixed price does this though.

jfriend wrote: »

No solution that doesn't charge per GB is going to archive old versions of things that you aren't keeping on your own hard drives forever.

eoren1 · August 23, 2012

I currently use Crashplan's 'friend' backup option. The friend in this case is an unused server at work. The beauty of this setup is it's free and restoring is a 10 minute drive away.

Photo Backups

Comments