10GB free cloud storage and $0.005/GB/month for more. 10GB free cloud storage and $0.005/GB/month for more.
10GB Free Cloud Storage and $0.005/GB/month For More @ Backblaze
60
Referral Links
Referral: random (44)
Referrer and referee receive 1 month free.
Related Stores
closed Comments
You've listed two different things. Are you confused as to what an API call is?
While their B2 Cloud Storage might be good enough, their personal backup service is horrible and I can only imagine it would translate into the B2 service.
Very Slow Speeds
American servers
Software has very few features and is unreliable
Policies are very strict, so much so that a 2TB restore is impossible as they would erase my backup before I manage to restore it because of the slow restore speeds.
Did you reproduce the slow speed from multiple locations? Keep in mind that American servers shouldn't have that much affect on the transfer. The latency is higher but that doesn't prevent you from saturating your bandwidth.
That very much depends on what is being transferred aside from anything else.
Obviously one 1 GB file transfer is going to have a latency cost of 1 unit. 1000 files making up one GB is going to have a latency of 1000 units (assuming network conditions are stable) which is going to significantly slow the transfer.
Yes I did check from multiple locations.
American servers always have an affect on transfer, you can see speedtest.net to see that.
Like I said before, if it's a single file, latency doesn't affect your ability to saturate your bandwidth.
That makes no sense.
That would mean I could upload any one file to America at 40mbit, my internet's top upload speed.
You are very wrong, I would suggest you do some research.
Care to explain why I am so "very wrong"?
Sending one large file, let's look at the TCP connection. It is my understand that once a connection is established between you and the server, TCP slow start will commence sending data in increasing increments via increasing the window size (and thus doubling the segments being sent) after each ACK is received. The goal here is to determine the maximum data transmission rate that can be achieved reliably across the connection.
So, while there is extra latency in those original segment transmissions, it will take it a little longer to increase the rate (waiting for the ACK before doubling window size), but it will still get doubled. I wouldn't expect increased latency to significantly affect packet loss? As such, the connection would eventually ramp up to a point where it can max out your connection.
Of course, the receiving server and hops in their network would need to be able to process 40mbps for this to work.
Feel free to suggest what "research" I should be performing.
edit: at first you were trying to claim that backblaze has slow speeds, now it seems that you could think their network is fast but you're only complaining on the basis that their service is not located in Australia. Which one is it?
Thats not how it works and I'm not required to explain why you are wrong, you being wrong means you should figure it out yourself. Nevertheless….
None of what you said makes sense but I honestly find it amazing that you manage to include real networking terms along with your completely wrong theory.
A packet can only be so large, you can't just send unlimited packet sizes, that is impossible. You could make multiple connections, but backblaze only supports up to 10. Most services don't do multiple connections anyway.
Backblaze American servers are not very friendly to Australian Internet connections. There are plenty of American servers that offer better speeds, but you still need either Australian servers or a lot of connections to achieve higher speeds.
But overall its the fact that they don't have Australian servers which is the problem.
How about you provide me something?
Give me a download link from American that I can download at 100mbit, but with only one connection.
I will bet a million dollars you won't find it.
So you are willing to write multiple paragraphs about all this other stuff but unable to write a quick response about how I am wrong? I think the more likely scenario is that you don't know what you're talking about.
And the fact you claim that none of what I wrote makes sense when I'm referring to pretty basic networking concepts doesn't improve your case.
"you can't just send unlimited packet sizes" - correct. This is defined by the MTU.
Up to 10 connections? What are you talking about? I really don't think you understand the fundamentals behind packet-switched networks. While the packet size wouldn't increase, the window size (how many packets you're sending at once) can fluctuate and increase (thus increasing throughput).
I'm not in a position to find a free file test from a provider with 100mbps egress. But I assume there'd be one out there.
Wait you don't understand multiple connections? Thats a pretty basic term…
I can't simply provide you with a simple sentence explaining why what you are suggesting is impossible in the same way there isn't an easy way to explain why a fighter jet can't fly into space.
I do find it interesting that you say its possible yet finding a 100mbit american server for Australia can't be done right now…
Why don't we try 50mbit? or 25mbit?
I think you have simply not realised that the only time you see super fast speeds to America is when multiple connections are used.
Troll confirmed. Try getting a degree and job in IT like me and you'll learn a few things, champ.
You know I find it funny how you still can't produce any evidence to back up your claim… and you just claim I'm a troll instead.
It would take you 5 seconds to provide me a link if it were true yet you spend so much effort backing up your bogus claims.
In what messed up world are you smarter then Google? hahaha
It wouldn't take 5 seconds, little boy. I don't think many providers have 100mbps dedicated bandwidth to serving free large file tests.
Oh so more name calling now in response to realising you are wrong? :-)
You do realise that its very common for providers to offer 100mbit for files? I do love your excuse though. Once again YOU are the only person in the world to realise this amazing thing while Google and Microsoft waste billions making local servers in countries like peasants. Right… :-)
I'm even going easy on your huge mistake by giving you the 25mbit and 50mbit option, but you are obviously ignoring this as you've realised you've just made a huge mistake.
Maybe getting some actual IT experience instead of printing a fake one on your printer would mean you could actually provide evidence when you post on the Internet?
But then again… that would require that your stories weren't made up.
Oh, if it's so common, then why don't you provide a link to a provider who offers 100mbps on a free file download? I'm waiting.
http://ftp.iinet.net.au/5000meg.test
http://www.tpg.com.au/test3.iso
ftp://ftp.optus.net.au/pub/1GB
Microsoft's website (download center)
Prove that those files allow 100mbps. Then find a file in America, confirm that network can also support 100mbps, then compare the results. Good luck, kid.
You want me to prove your crazy theory?
No thanks, I've been providing evidence this whole time, the rest is up to you.
Also nice subject derail but I'm not going to fall for it. You still posted something that is embarrassingly wrong.
Interesting. It's a free service right?
Not that i'm aware of.
Have to agree, I was on their Personal Backup plan and after 6 months I cancelled.
The software is crap, you have to specify what you don't want backed up, which in my case meant most of the computer. And you need to constantly review that because it will add any new files/folders if they're on a drive you're partially monitoring.
You can't not specify the system drive, ie. it will always be backed up and considering it's the easiest thing to restore that is just ridiculous.
The computer needs to connect at least once every 6 months or your data will be deleted and account cancelled, (ie. don't go OS for a long time).
You can only backup a single device otherwise you have to pay for any extra.
Since my online backup is less than 1TB I just gave up and switched to iDrive: 1 x Android phone, 2 x tablets, 3 x Win8 computers, 1 x WHS2011 server, and a Debian VPS all backed up to one account for the same cost as BackBlaze Personal.
So it seems like if I need to store 1TB worth of data,it would cost $5 dollar per month, and if I need to retrieve it, it will cost me $50 assuming 1TB is 1000GB. Seems pricey for the retrieval?
The storage isn't what's expensive here, it's the retrieval.
Ransomware
what? Backblaze is legit, in fact it will help you recover data if you are hit by ransomware
It's not malicious ransomware, but still ransomware. A lock in strategy with a high cost to exit and/or high cost to actually use the data. A free line of coke to get you started…
How so? It's competing with cloud services such as Azure and Amazon S3. Azure at least also charges for bandwidth. It's not a competitor to One Drive, Dropbox etc.
People storing personal data should be looking at the Perosonal plans which look to be unlimited at a fixed price. These ones here charging for retrieval look to be aimed at enterprise customers. https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage-providers.html has their own pricing comparison chart (for lack of interest in searching for a third party one) showing the sorts of services they are competing with and the fact that many charge to get data from the server just as many web host might also charge for bandwidth.
It isn't ransomware you pillock. Ransomware aside from anything else will not allow you to choose to use it.
Anyone tested the speed? Any good from Australia?
Their speeds are not that good being that they are American servers and only allow 10 threads.
Their backup system is great, not sure about that B2 thing. But 10go free is 10Go free, you can still try and stop it if you don't like it.
I find their business model interesting, they rely on the fact you will download things to catch up with the costs. I think it is quite clever, you may call it ransomware but at the end of the day, if you don't like it you don't use it.
Seems like it would be ok if it were usable like dropbox for backing up travel photos whilst overseas. Because you'd only re-download them if something got stolen.
Which one is it now
Downloading files costs $0.004 per 10,000 calls. The first 2500 per day are free. All other API calls cost $0.004 per 1,000 calls. The first 2500 per day are free.