We are already looking for another datacenter, but mostly because we're running out of space in the current one due to our traditional business (online backup) doing so well.
So! If you can tolerate the loss of a datacenter, store in Blackblaze. If you need geo-redundancy until Backblaze can offer it? Store in us-east-1 (which is geo-redundant between Virginia and Oregon).
All I could find on the S3 FAQ says "your objects are redundantly stored on multiple devices across multiple facilities." which seems to contradict the "one datacenter" claim.
Also, do you have a source that us-east-1 is geo-redundant between Virginia and Oregon? That was not my understanding of how it worked.
"You specify a region when you create your Amazon S3 bucket. Within that region, your objects are redundantly stored on multiple devices across multiple facilities. Please refer to Regional Products and Services for details of Amazon S3 service availability by region"
Note, "within that region". Separate AZs, same geographic location.
"CRR is an Amazon S3 feature that automatically replicates data across AWS regions. With CRR, every object uploaded to an S3 bucket is automatically replicated to a destination bucket in a different AWS region that you choose. You can use CRR to provide lower-latency data access in different geographic regions. CRR can also help if you have a compliance requirement to store copies of data hundreds of miles apart."
This post http://shlomoswidler.com/2009/12/read-after-write-consistenc... has a quote from Jeff Barr at AWS indicating that us-east-1 is bicoastal, which is also why its eventually consistent, instead of immediately after a write (EDIT: it appears this constraint no longer applies to the US standard region).
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2015/04/16/aws_data_centre_arch...
"To solve latency, Amazon built Availability Zones on groups of tightly coupled data centres. Each data centre in a Zone is less than 25 microseconds away from its sibling and packs 102Tbps of networking."
25 microseconds at the speed of light (best case, through a vacuum; through fiber is significantly slower) is ~4.7 miles, and based on the quote, that is the furthest they are apart. If your buildings are within 1-2 miles of each other, they're essentially the same facility.
That is not geographically redundant.
I asked for sources about your "one datacenter" claim. Just because several facilities are in the same geographic region does not mean they are the same datacenter.
Just because something is bicoastal does not mean your data is replicated on both coasts. It could also mean that your data is stored on either the west or the east coast.
I would have trouble believing they store twice the data as their other regions but charge the same (actually a bit less!).
Or store it in Amazon AND store another copy in Backblaze. This isn't necessarily an "either/or" question. Having two copies with two different vendors in two separate regions is probably more reliable than having two copies inside the same vendor. For example, if Amazon has a large outage that affects both your regions, you can still access the copy in Backblaze.
All AWS AZs are physically separated facilities with redundancy on all their infrastructure, although they're obviously in the same general area.
us-east-1 is not geo-redundant. It is entirely on the east-coast, as the name suggests. Although S3 does have geo-redundancy in all regions.
You may have been thinking of "US Standard", but it is the same as "us-east-1".
http://docs.aws.amazon.com/general/latest/gr/rande.html#s3_r...
Quote from Jeff Barr @ AWS: http://shlomoswidler.com/2009/12/read-after-write-consistenc....