Backblaze Announces B2 Compute Partnerships
backblaze.com
backblaze.com
I know you're in Cloud Sync, but that's really not the same thing (a one/two way sync is not a backup service).
I'm not sure if you need to give Synology a nudge or something, and I would even pay a fee for it if need be, but until then I can't use B2 as one my main backup destination for all those businesses NAS I have at various small sized companies I administrate.
Sadly it still means if the source gets corrupted for whatever reason the backup is done, for business files sync is really not backup (I don't think I'm teaching you anything there, but really this sadly doesn't fit my needs at all). Also Hyper Vault is all about the intelligent versionning.
While it's possible to trick it by doing the backup somewhere and then syncing THAT to B2 (and I do it for my personnal NAS), it's too much of a hassle and "complex" setup that I can't see myself pushing that to my customers.
OVH managed to get them to add HubiC in there so clearly there is a way. Hope you will keep pushing them until they move on it ! And thanks for making such a great product :)
They know we'd like it in there, think that OVH was there before C2 was ready so they are "grandfathered in". Best way to let them know you want it is to add your voice to the thread!
Anyway, snapshots give me what I'm looking for re: versioning.
With versioning it is.
The purpose of file syncing and backuping is very different, one is ensuring that a change on the source is replicated to the destination and is kept up to date on changes, the other is taking a snapshot frozen in time no matter what happens on the source.
Backup is not just about having a copy, it's having a copy that stops being kept in sync with the original after it is made.
There is also a concept of Write Once Read Many in storage which is used for compliance. So you can use sync with WORM and it's basically append only.
Gleb from Backblaze
Are there plans to accelerate this as an offering for other providers? I think there's huge benefit in partnering with other providers where you're enabling an agnostic storage layer (any provider that needs a durable object storage system without the complexity of operationalizing one themselves). Congrats, huge Backblaze fan!
Do you have some specific providers you were interested in having connected?
Not off hand, but lots of colleagues in hosting, exchange fabrics, SaaS products, etc and I want to be able to recommend a partnership to them whenever a good fit appears.
We also use Digital Ocean, so they'd be our second choice; however, I doubt they'll be willing to integrate with a direct competitor to their Spaces product.
And the best thing: They don't only focus on price but the quality is great as well.
And for us being a german/european provider is a bonus (GDPR).
I would expect that as this grows (and it will, cheap, reliable storage and all), their network footprint would extend into more facilities (scale is required for this to be cost effective though).
Latency is not an issue until you're pushing GB/sec and crossing an ocean, and even that is feasible (lots of resources at https://es.net/ for that use case).
This makes it more compelling for them :)
Also this opens up the possibility for someone to make a SaaS on video storage and transcoding for great value
BTW, this person is figuring out how to do transcoding of files their files in B2 as well: https://twitter.com/orlandoferrer/status/981205299532124163
Ray
We have few PB of data there and never had any problem.
I honestly don't see any reason for anyone to use AWS or Google Cloud for object storage, except for the outbound network transfer issue from these providers.
But you're correct - we do recommend diversification, having data in multiple locations is always a best practice, and if you can have it in different vedors, all the better!
S3 always stores your data in at least 3 availability zones, for instance.
That said, I am not super impressed by these first two compute providers, and probably would not trust them to give me enough nines even if they started doing FaaS. I can spin up something similar with Kubernetes on Hetzner for considerably less money...
> currency conversion is expensive
Backblaze probably won't accept other currencies in 2018. However, we definitely have heard about this issue, and we have a feature in the works to allow you to "load up" your account with an arbitrary amount of pre-paid cash so that you pay ONE transaction fee to deposit (as an example) £250 pounds at once (incurring the £2.50 conversion fee exactly once) and then as Backblaze deducts from this account balance instead of a credit card there are zero transaction fees.
Would that help?
The OTHER reason this is a requested feature is some customers want a "reserve fund" to be used if their Credit Card payment fails, as a hedge against Backblaze deleting their data for lack of payment.
At last. I actually did abandon B2 over DO's Spaces due to the lack of this feature, despite the far more competitive pricing on your end. That, and the lack of AWS API support, but that was mostly related to my particular use case, which was the need to mount cloud storage as disk partitions using s3ql which mainly supports AWS, OpenStack and compatible services. It does have preliminary B2 support [0] but it was really hacky and I ended up losing data because of it.
Having a prepaid credit option and the option to use PayPal for such payments like DO does would have tipped me towards Backblaze's favor to the point of trying to fix s3ql's B2 support, though. ;)
If you don't have more than 1TiB, JuiceFS is totally free.
Disclaimer: Founder of JuiceFS here.
Which UK bank charges £2.15 in fees or exchange rate loading, on a £0.35 transaction?
(In my experience the most a UK bank will charge for a foreign currency card transaction is 2.75%.)
You will normally need to enter your PIN at checkouts. For non-Sterling (foreign currency) transactions we will charge a fee of 2.75% of the Sterling amount of the transaction. This fee will be shown as a separate line on your statement as a 'Non-Sterling Transaction Fee'.
http://www1.firstdirect.com/1/2/travel-and-international/tra...
And in my experience there's no minimum on this fee, i.e. the effective percentage isn't any higher for small amounts.
I agree with other people's comments about using Revolut and Transferwise cards for $ purchases in general. But if the commenter to whom I replied is spending $0.50 per month in USD, then the non-sterling transaction fee should be ~2 pence per month. So not worth the extra (albeit minor) hassle of maintaining another card.
Monzo also has 0 fees for international card payments.
"You will be charged a non-sterling transaction fee of 2.75% of the value plus a non-sterling purchase fee of £1.25 for each transaction"
My use case is download-heavy, though, and a little bit bursty (but with a long tail, a CDN doesn't really address my needs); what sort of bandwidth speeds can I expect from downloading B2 when a decent number of clients, let's say 100-500, are hitting a single object concurrently?
That was a strange oversight, sorry! Here is an explanation of our architecture regarding downloads:
Backblaze files are served up from a set of load balanced "download servers". Think of the download servers as "caches". The FIRST time you request a URL, the download server has to go fetch the file from the vault. The file must be reconstructed since it is striped across 20 separate pods (as soon as any 17 of these pods respond, it is enough to reconstruct the file).
The download servers have 10 Gbit networking and a fast SSD. The file is cached on the local download server's fast SSD. So the SECOND time you fetch the URL from one download server it can go really fast.
Ok, so the download servers don't talk to each other and there isn't any IP address affinity. So take the example where we have 20 download servers serving files from the area your one file comes from. If there is a lot of "hot" activity on one file (like 500 threads fetching the same one file in the same minute) then each download server fetches it ONCE from the vault, which means out of the 500 threads, about 20 early threads will get "lower performance" as the vault reconstructs the file, so maybe 2 - 5 Mbits/sec for the first file fetch on each download server? Then 480 threads will be fetching the file directly from the 10 Gbit/sec fast SSD cache servers. If the threads are spread evenly across the 20 download servers, so each download server serves up around 24 threads, which is easy.
Now some disclaimers: Backblaze has a TON of experience storing and writing files into our datacenter. However, we are still learning about serving files OUT of our datacenter. Recently we realized the SSDs in the download servers were a little small and files weren't getting cache hits enough. In other words, we could deploy fewer download servers if we gave them more local SSD space. So we're fixing that.
We also like to listen to customers and work with them. So if a knowledgeable customer experiences slow downs or they see an anomaly we can take a look and figure out how to improve.
Anyway, thanks a lot!
Given the other prices packet.net lists for bandwidth (Starting at 0.05/gb) i assume it's not unmetered (that's about 300 tb for 1 gbps for a month).
I'd never heard of Packet before today but I was able to see their pricing without any issues:
I appear to have taken some weird path through the top-level "Product" menu - I'd love to say that the "Pricing" link wasn't immediately to the left of the "Product" link but at this point I'm going to have to simply claim insanity. Now that you've all steered the raving lunatic to the very transparent pricing, I'll shut up and try to find a project to justify bare-metal.
> why single out these two providers?
They are the first two. We are very open to more!
> Shared parent company?
Backblaze is owned by employees. 100% of the board of directors work at the company every day. We have no parent company. :-)
> Cheaper peering for some reason?
Yes. We made sure any candidate partner has a direct cross connect with our locations and the data goes over pipes we own so our costs are "fixed". After you own/lease the fiber line the bandwidth is "mostly" free inside of it. I say "mostly" because we still have to pay a tiny amount for each network port on each end, some electricity, etc. But it's negligible compared to paying for bandwidth at market rates.
Side note: never heard of SlicingDice before but their website doesn't seem to be working, getting a cloudflare site offline page.
SlicingDice worked for me. Are you still getting an offline page?
I wonder how realistic running analytics over stored data is.