Uhg. Where do I go now? I really just ultimately want encrypted zfs replication...
this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
195 points (99.0% liked)
Technology
83893 readers
3825 users here now
This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.
Our Rules
- Follow the lemmy.world rules.
- Only tech related news or articles.
- Be excellent to each other!
- Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
- Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
- Politics threads may be removed.
- No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
- Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
- Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
- Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.
Approved Bots
founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
rsync.net offers ZFS send/receive and I’ve been using it for 5 years now, it’s pretty great. It’s not super expensive per GB, but they ask a minimum of 5TB if you want native ZFS support, which is $60/month.
You get access to a full FreeBSD VM which is very nice, because you can do things like metrics or a “pull” setup that pulls backups from your machines, so you’re more resilient against stuff like ransomware.
This would increase my yearly cost from $99 to over 10k
Just price out S3 compatible storage and use backup software that can encrypt. Then it doesn't matter who holds it.
Wasabi is reputable and has fair pricing. iDrive is well priced.
I'm still sending to B2 until the price actually changes for me.
I personally use Duplicati (and yes I've tested restores).
The changes come as the company has experienced a 40X year-over-year increase in AI data stored on its servers and has increased focus on its accelerating AI business.
If this means they just want to throttle AI companies, I don’t care. Go forth and prosper BackBlaze.
If it doesn’t, statement retracted.
An individual storing 10tb on their "unlimited" cloud backup: $8/ month
A company storing 10tb on their S3: $60/month
An ai company storing 10tb on their faster S3: $150/month AND must use multiple petabytes (at least $30k/month)
It's easy to see which kind of customer they like to have
Oh good point. Yeah you are probably right.
Backblaze is a service I really depend on, and one I've recommended. However they're still not profitable and investor money isnt going to keep them afloat forever.
What is an “AI storage service”?
Does that mean you just store your info in AI weights/contexts and hope it can regenerate an approximation of what you put in?
I assume it's where the AI companies store the stolen data used to train their LLMs.
It's s3 compatible storage (b2) you sell to companies using AI for twice as much.
b2 storage is $6/Tb/mo, AI storage is b2 storage at $15/Tb/mo.
It’s like selling special gold shovels during a gold rush that are better at shoveling gold.
It's like the wedding or funeral tax, where all items cost extra for no reason, other than exploitation.
Oh god, i know thats not possible and here come the startups to pitch it.
I got sick of paying for backblaze. Duplicati is a good free solution. You just need cloud storage to use it, which you might already be paying for in other services.
I use borgbase. It's not the same, but it's cheap and not stored in the US.
I just set up a launchd task on my Mac to run my Borg jobs and I never have to think about it. You could do the same with systemd on linux. If you're on Windows why are you still on Windows?
Well that sucks. I use Backblaze and it has saved my ass more than once.
Backblaze, Shmackblaze
That's not surprising with all of the data hoarders abusing the unlimited backups to store hundreds of terabytes.
"abusing" the "unlimited backups" to store "limited" terabytes.
If you can't afford to offer unlimited backups, maybe put a limit?
How is that abuse? "Unlimited" is a pretty audacious plan to offer. Maybe Backblaze shouldn't offer something impossible.
The software only allows local drives to be backed up, but some people use workarounds to make it backup a large NAS or server.
But that's not who is being targeted with the changes Backblaze has made. By silently excluding sync folders, they're casting a wide net and hoping it will catch those who use workarounds. It might, but in the process it reveals their comfort with deceptive business practices and harms users of the backup service who are not using workarounds.
Are they boosting their AI business in anticipation of breaking encryption and then training their models on everyone's data? That's what I would assume of a company I no longer trust.
so it seems like they should just “limit” the storage to a reasonable number of TB that is more than most desktops/laptops, and less than NASes with hundreds of TB.
About two weeks ago, Backblaze sent out an email
Headlines are clickbait. Literally the first line in the article. What more can they do than send an email?
The title is accurate.
You just failed to read the article part the first ten words.
However, roughly six months ago, Backblaze enacted a silent change that made its backup app stop uploading local data synced to "OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, iDrive, and others."
And I recall Backblaze stating that those users are a minority and aren't a big concern. I used to do that, but when I attempted to restore 7TB and it took well over a month to restore what I needed, I switched to other solutions.
Yeah, screw those people. I can't think of a single other reason a profit driven company would cut corners while storage prices rise due to AI companies.
I'm asking as a genuine question, where or how should people backup large datastores? Also what counts as too large? I've heard Backblaze doesn't cover NAS so i wouldn't be able to backup my 2TB zfs RAID, but like is that too much?
I want to do 3-2-1 for my homelab to preserve all pictures in my immich and the backups of my LXCs and VMs, but I'm just not sure how to go about it, and I was considering archives of those files + backblaze...
A second offsite NAS with your friend? That's what I did when I grew out of my old synology. My new NAS capacity is noticeably impacted by things like frequent local snapshots but I don’t need to back those up remotely and it saves space.
Local tape. If you need offsite, rotate tapes. If you need cloud, Amazon Glacier or equivalent (which are backed by tape, I assume).
Tape drives are expensive as fuck though.
Before the storage wars it was cheaper to just build a second shitty NAS and backup there
Don't trust backblaze or any service that claims "unlimited".
The overwhelming feedback I've seen is to "KISS" and use some combination of restic/borg/kopia and rclone to sync data or local backups to cloud storage like https://www.hetzner.com/storage/storage-box/.
Restic/borg are more for whole system backups, where kopia is more for data (a central kopia server/repository can deduplicate and version data from multiple machines). Rclone is good for syncing local backups to cloud services, or perhaps e2ee synchronisation between machines (though it doesn't do versioning and multiple machines will cause problems).
This is the most flexible, long-term, as you can just update the storage backend and transfer or re-upload everything as necessary.
For a NAS, you can use Backblaze B2, but they certainly aren't the cheapest. B2 doesn't have the limitations that the personal and business plans have, but you pay by the TB.
There are lots of cloud backup providers. Just make sure it supports the OS on your NAS. Any of them that claim to be unlimited will not truly be unlimited.
Hard to say thats it if just having 2TB uploaded is enough to be considered in the top.
Especially if they've already started ignoring other cloud files in people's backups
Yeah, a few hundred outliers can really ruin it. People: have some self awareness and don’t be a douchebag.
You’re talking to the crowd where if it can be done, it should be done, and bragged about. Sadly.