Hacker News Reader

Backblaze is cloud and suffers the major limitation of being expensive for an individual. The case for NAS for personal backup is getting stronger every day. For anything > 1TB, for personal backup or sync, a NAS is $400 investment whereas cloud would be $400 recurring cost which is ever increasing and has risks of ransomware etc.

View on HN

The typcial NAS doesn't offer geo-redundancy. You can colocate it to get that, but that also significantly increases cost, which makes cloud competitive again.

If this is personal backup, you can usually find another tech-savvy friend who will co-locate a secondary NAS for free.

For a very long time neither did backblaze.

> For a very long time neither did backblaze.

Unless you live in a Backblaze data center, using Backblaze has always implied that your data is stored in at least two separate locations.

It’s the same argument for the cloud. With Backblaze, I pay $x/month and someone else deals with OS/Software updates and hard drive failures. If I don’t outsource, I handle it myself for less.

It’s just a trade off based on how much time and comfort you have as a personal user.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com