rsync.net was posted here on HN a few days ago.
Also, tarsnap is another popular service.
Neither have the special additions that makes Backblaze so popular, but could be popular alternatives.
My guess the bulk of that price difference is due to economies of scale.
Given it's all personal data that I can stand to be without for days if needed, I could probably use Glacier (or even Glacier Deep Archive) and pay less than a third of the cost (or less than a twelfth!), but the absolute dollar amount isn't high enough for me to go through the trouble of changing up my backup scripts.
Sure, if you're running a business and are constantly generating lots of new data that needs to be backed up, that gets more expensive, but I also would expect a business with that much data could easily afford to spend several orders of magnitude more than I do on backups.
So far I'm happy with it, pricing is $5/month per 250gb + 1To egress. And, most importantly, none of the AWS complexity overhead. I have enough of that at work.
Technically you do have to pre-allocate, but it works like pay-on-demand because:
<paste>
We can increase the size of your filesystem at any time, with no downtime involved - so there is no need to overbuy in anticipation of future usage.
Further, you are granted a +10% grace at all times, so you always have some room to grow.
Finally, the system automatically emails you as you get close to your limit, so there is never an unexpected filling of space.
</paste>
OVH has two interesting products here:
OVH cloud archive works with rsync, costs roughly half as much for storage as blackblaze, roughly the same for egress, but charges for ingress (at the same rate as egress).
OVH object store is s3 compatible (like blackblaze), charges roughly the same for bandwidth, 2x for storage.
https://www.ovhcloud.com/en/public-cloud/prices/#439
Digitalocean has a blob store with the same pricing on bandwidth, 4x the pricing on storage, a minimum spend of $5/month on storage, but the first tb ($10) of bandwidth free.
I would be surprised if OVH had another fire in the future.
seems this the cheapest of all
However I do think there is value in Tarsnap if security is really that important. Colin is really switched on, and I trust both the service, and if anything happened, he would deal with it quickly and professionally. If I had the kind of profile that meant I needed to protect myself against determined attackers, then tarsnap would be a no-brainer for me.
> the original version, which can survive the loss of 2 datacenters, not the "reduced redundancy" version which can only survive the loss of a single datacenter
These days, there's not just reduced redundancy, but also infrequent access, which seems better for backups…
First, we only offer SSH / TCP22 so the transit is encrypted.
Second, we have installed, and maintain on the server side tools like 'borg' and 'rclone'. So while you might just 'rsync' or 'sftp' your data to us (in which cases it would not be encrypted on our end) you can also use sophisticated, encrypted backup tools like (borg, duplicity, git-annex, rclone, restic, etc.)
If you choose a tool like that, rsync.net does not hold the encryption keys. The data appears to be random from our viewpoint.