Hacker News Reader

But Backblaze is cheating in how they compare pricing, because they compare to a much more expensive S3 storage class. In the "4TB disk crash" case it's really not as their website describes:

AWS: $ 48/year to store, $ 312 to retrieve Backblaze: $ 240/year to store, $ 40 to retrieve

If I store it for more than 17 months before the crash, Backblaze is actually more expensive than AWS.

View on HN

Yev here -> the reason we have S3 pricing on our pricing page and not Deep Glacier is because our performance is closer-tied to the S3 service, meaning both Backblaze B2 and S3 are hot storage. Deep Glacier is...well..cool or cold storage in that it takes more time to access your data.

You're not wrong, just wanted to give a bit more context on the why!

Ok, makes sense. Time to launch a lower cost slow retrieval product? Because for most backups I expect there are a lot of customers that would trade retrieval time for a lower cost per GB.

>to get everything back: you can configure your backup to get back only what you actually need (assume it's not all) and save cost

Another contender, might work for you

https://www.scaleway.com/en/pricing/#c14-cold-storage

C14 Cold Storage

Glacier

€0.002/GB/month

with free bandwidth

Reply on news.ycombinator.com