Howdy, Stranger!

It looks like you're new here. If you want to get involved, click one of these buttons!

Subscribe to our newsletter

Advertise on LowEndTalk.com

Latest LowEndBox Offers

    Backblaze S3 storage
    New on LowEndTalk? Please read our 'Community Rules' by clicking on it in the right menu!

    Backblaze S3 storage

    vfusevfuse Member, Provider

    Backblaze is now offering S3 storage at just $0.005 per gb

    https://www.backblaze.com/b2/cloud-storage.html

    Just signed up but still on the waiting list, did anyone already get in?

    Thanked by 1deadbeef

    NIXStats monitoring Web, Server(Linux, Windows - $6.95/m), Logging (Free!) and Blacklists (start at 512 for $3.75/m) - Uptime Report - API Docs

    Comments

    • Im also on the waiting list :)

      Hosts I Recommend >> HVH | XiNiX | CloudCone | HostUs | BuyVM | VirMach

    • netomxnetomx Member, Moderator

      thanks, I've registered.

    • Same, on the waiting list!

      Another month, another casual reminder of the monotonous and pointless passage of time.

      CRITICAL: MySQL slave is 1620 seconds behind Master

    • It says that you get bumped up the waiting list if you fill out their survey. Amusingly it asks if you work for S3, which I suspect pushes you back down the list :)

    • How can they offer it that cheap?

      I recommend Prometeus, the best provider ever!

    • WHTWHT Member
      edited September 2015

      Can this be used as ftp server to backup cpanel accounts?

      Edit: $5 per TB is not the cheapest time4vps still cheaper :)

    • vfusevfuse Member, Provider

      @mpkossen said:
      How can they offer it that cheap?

      They have some really cool posts on their blog on how they build their servers with costs etc.

      https://www.backblaze.com/blog/storage-pod-4-5-tweaking-a-proven-design/

      NIXStats monitoring Web, Server(Linux, Windows - $6.95/m), Logging (Free!) and Blacklists (start at 512 for $3.75/m) - Uptime Report - API Docs

    • @mpkossen - higher density, consumer drives 'good enough' - see their (open) storage pod design here : https://backblaze.com/blog/storage-pod/.

      I bet they will do transparent remote compression as well.

      Thanked by 1deadbeef
    • mpkossen said: How can they offer it that cheap?

      >

      Deduplication + FS Compression etc i would think

      I AM BACK :)
      Working Windows Server 2012 R2 on 6GB! Beat that!

    • They're calling it S3 storage. Does that mean they use S3, an S3 compatible API, or something else?

      I recommend Prometeus, the best provider ever!

    • Awmusic12635Awmusic12635 Member, Provider

      mpkossen said: They're calling it S3 storage. Does that mean they use S3, an S3 compatible API, or something else?

      They are just using S3 as a term to get people to easily relate to what it is exactly. API is not S3 compatible yet. But they said it might be planned. It is a beta.

      https://www.reddit.com/r/sysadmin/comments/3ly8zw/backblaze_takes_on_amazon_s3_with_dirtcheap_data/

      Some backblaze employees have been responding in this post

      Thanked by 2deadbeef vfuse

      Subnet Labs, LLC Contact Us Deploy to: Seattle, Dallas or NYC
      Impact VPS | Cloud Servers | Storage Servers | Impact Shared | Shared Hosting

    • Looks surprising,
      Signed up, 10GB would be great for backups :D

      I don't have any relation/affiliation with any LET Host, All of my comments are my own
      Simple bash script to clean compromised wordpress site [cPanel/WHM specified]

    • TarZZ92 said: Deduplication + FS Compression etc i would think

      Also using desktop disks helps, but the problem with this service is performance. If you look at their pod design, its so over contended in every way.

      We went through a long (9 months) of scaleability tests with our S3 service and we did test their pod design and an i3 processor can't handle that amount of traffic, secondly two gigabit ports and 45 disks is not a good contention.

      Assume each disk can do 100MB real through put thats 4500MBps traffic or 36Gbps being forced through 2 x 1Gbps (assuming they bond them).

      Then using 5 x SATA expanders contends disks further, so its just one bottleneck after another.

      Their design is great for slow backup but for performance sensitive traffic its going to be very sluggish. I don't know how they think they can pitch this against the other S3 services they name. The performance of those other platforms is a magnitude of levels higher.

      We came at this a different way, we built our pods with 36 disks with individual SATA connections to each disk and 2 NVMe SSDs for caching, each pod has 2 x 10GE interconnect and 1 x 40Gbps Infiniband for clustering. Performance off our S3 platform is crazily fast and dimensioned for large traffic.

    • Awmusic12635 said: They are just using S3 as a term to get people to easily relate to what it is exactly. API is not S3 compatible yet. But they said it might be planned. It is a beta.

      That makes the title of this thread misleading. Oh well... It doesn't make the offer anything less interesting.

      I recommend Prometeus, the best provider ever!

    • telephonetelephone Member
      edited September 2015

      @mpkossen said:
      How can they offer it that cheap?

      More in-depth here: http://www.lowendtalk.com/discussion/63950/blackblaze-rolls-out-new-storage-plan-at-half-a-penny-per-gigabyte-5-for-1tb-month

      In short: $5/TB to store, $50/TB to recover ($0.005/GB to store, $0.05/GB to recover).

      Thanked by 2mpkossen netomx
    • telephone said: In short: $5/TB to store, $50/TB to recover ($0.005/GB to store, $0.05/GB to recover).

      So assuming you want to do more than just send data, if they are claiming theirs is the cheapest in the world, then our S3 service is cheaper:

      1TB storage, $0/GB/in, 1TB out included = $19.50/month

      10TB storage, $0/GB/in, 10TB out included = $177.45/month

      http://www.delimiter.com/landingpage/objspace/

      Compared to their charges:

      1TB Storage = $0.005 x 1000 = $5

      1TB In = $0

      1TB Out = $50

      Total: $55/month

      10TB Storage = $0.005 x 10000 = $50

      10TB In = $0

      10TB Out = $500

      Total: $550/month

      So it seems that Delimiter's S3 storage is almost 60% cheaper than the 'The lowest cost cloud storage on the planet:'

      Thanked by 3WHT deadbeef lazyt
    • @MarkTurner said:
      So assuming you want to do more than just send data,

      I don't think that's their positioning though - to me it looks like a "glacier without the delay".

    • deadbeef said: glacier without the delay

      More like Glacier without the delay, without the same level of redundancy and without any decent performance.

      Just imagine the performance of an i3 with 180TB strapped to it and 8GB RAM. Just common sense tells you thats going to be painful under load.

      Thanked by 1deadbeef
    • Dreamhost tried this, they still have it, single datacenter and S3 api compatible, you just change the url you connect to in your script.

      Thanked by 1netomx
    • MarkTurner said: So it seems that Delimiter's S3 storage is almost 60% cheaper than the 'The lowest cost cloud storage on the planet:'

      The only problem with your comparison is you will not use outbound traffic every month, only on the off chance you need to restore.

      Hostigation High Resource Hosting - SolusVM KVM VPS / Proxmox OpenVZ VPS- Low Cost Comodo SSL Certificates
    • @miTgiB - it depends whether you are using this space for backup or serving content. From what I can tell the majority of S3 users are using it as an object store rather than backup so in the majority of cases, you'll easily consume this transit.

      If you factor it out over 12 months, then budget for one calamity per year, you'll probably still find it cheaper.

      Consider running something like Duplicity and you want to restore from that, you have the full backups and the incrementals to download to restore your data. That gets expensive very quickly if you are paying per GB.

      Thanked by 1EkaatyLinux
    • pbgbenpbgben Member, Provider

      They're claiming 20gbps io, they split files across 20 of their storage pods, they call this the vault.

    • @WHT said:
      Can this be used as ftp server to backup cpanel accounts?

      Edit: $5 per TB is not the cheapest time4vps still cheaper :)

      True, but @time4vps has something called an "Acceptable Use Policy" which prevents you from filling up an entire drive in 1 second

    • singsingsingsing Member
      edited September 2015

      Still, great for backup. Production? No.

      But if they ever decide to shut down, there is -no way- everyone will be able to take their data back out. This problem exists generally and not much can be done about it.

    • time4vpstime4vps Member, Host Rep

      doghouch said: @time4vps has something called an "Acceptable Use Policy" which prevents you from filling up an entire drive in 1 second

      Can you be more specific? Our storage servers can be filled up to the package limit: 0.5 TB, 1 TB and 2 TB.

      Time4VPS - time for your personal server

    • time4vps said: Can you be more specific? Our storage servers can be filled up to the package limit: 0.5 TB, 1 TB and 2 TB.

      I presume he's talking about I/O. Filling up 500GB in a few seconds would be a huge waste of I/O resources.

    • time4vpstime4vps Member, Host Rep

      Gunter said: I presume he's talking about I/O. Filling up 500GB in a few seconds would be a huge waste of I/O resources.

      Indeed we have limits on IOPS: 400 IOPS. At 99% cases it's more then enough.

      Thanked by 1vimalware

      Time4VPS - time for your personal server

    • time4vps said: Indeed we have limits on IOPS: 400 IOPS. At 99% cases it's more then enough.

      >

      so that the reason I got 5 minute to check directory size?

      $ time du -sh /backup/
      15G /backup/
      
      real    5m9.549s
      user    0m1.322s
      sys 0m11.590s
      

      Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

    • @MarkTurner said: @miTgiB - it depends whether you are using this space for backup or serving content. From what I can tell the majority of S3 users are using it as an object store rather than backup so in the majority of cases, you'll easily consume this transit.

      That's correct. S3 is used primarily for object store for web applications and such. AWS also just introduced "Infrequent Access Storage" which this is much more similar to ($0.0125/GB/mo) - this is also similar to Google's Nearline Storage ($0.01/GB/mo).

      I haven't used Backblaze in awhile, but from my past experience it was slow as shit for both backups & restores, but it was truly unlimited backup for pennies a month.

      This is $5/TB/mo object storage that will probably lack the performance (assumption based on past experience, the setup we know they're running and the price tag), but might be good for a secondary/third layer backup/long term archival solution. I have no problem spending a few bucks a month to have a secondary offsite backup, but can't see myself or clients using it for anything remotely production (or even primary backups)

    • mikeyur said: I haven't used Backblaze in awhile, but from my past experience it was slow as shit for both backups & restores, but it was truly unlimited backup for pennies a month.

      Its 'slow as shit' by design. The pods are overcontended at every level: CPU underpower, shared SATA interconnects, too small RAM, 1-2 gigabit ports.

      I think this product is just a knee jerk reaction to slowing backup sales and trying to get in on the S3 business. But like many of the non-primary players in that market, they provide a very substandard service.

      Thanked by 1TarZZ92
    • cnbeiningcnbeining Member
      edited September 2015

      Should this be the reason, it would be very bad. '

      Edit: Link: https://www.reddit.com/r/IAmA/comments/rhrt4/we_are_the_team_that_runs_online_backup_service/

      Thanked by 1telephone
    • From what I understand its actually piled in one room, ultra high density!

    • time4vpstime4vps Member, Host Rep

      tommy said: so that the reason I got 5 minute to check directory size?

      How many files do you have in that directory?

      Time4VPS - time for your personal server

    • time4vps said: How many files do you have in that directory?

      118186 directories, 1167023 files

      Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

    • @tommy said:

      that's it ? it took the whole five mins to crawl only this many files and dirs ? Dayum !

      Thanked by 1deadbeef
    • @tommy said:
      118186 directories, 1167023 files

      I think tar is getting out of beta next month!

      Thanked by 1vimalware
    • Junkless said: that's it ? it took the whole five mins to crawl only this many files and dirs ? Dayum !

      yup

      deadbeef said: I think tar is getting out of beta next month!

      what are you talking about? Do you save log, incremental backup in tar ?

      Let's bet which dot-name will collapse first ;)

    • deadbeefdeadbeef Member
      edited October 2015

      @tommy said:
      what are you talking about?

      https://github.com/jborg/attic

      Variable block size deduplication is used to reduce the number of bytes stored by detecting redundant data. Each file is split into a number of variable length chunks and only chunks that have never been seen before are compressed and added to the repository.

      Do you save log, incremental backup in tar ?

      I generate via cron a tar archives of sets of files and backup those. I do agree that this might not best fit your use case though.

    Sign In or Register to comment.