Comment by IgorPartola | Hacker News Reader

Comment by IgorPartola | Hacker News Reader

This almost brings it down to where I can start backing things up onto S3. Currently my home NAS houses just under 500 GB's of stuff. My requirements to back this up offsite would be (1) full encryption of each file and filename using a key only I hold and (2) reasonable per-month price to where I cannot justify just buying another box with a bunch of drives and sticking them at a friend's house.

I believe I can solve the former with S3, though I still don't know of a turnkey solution. The latter is not quite there but this update brings it a lot closer. At this point it would cost me $15/month or $180/year. That's not terrible, but for that price I can easily have two 2TB WD Red drives. The box to house them would cost just a bit more since I need no horsepower, but just enough to run ZFS.

Glacier is a more attractive option, but the fact that the price is so complex when transferring data out of it, I'd be looking at taking months to restore everything just to not pay to dollar for it.

Check out CamliStore at http://camlistore.org/. It's far more than backup, but it accomplishes that as well and supports S3 as well as Google Cloud Storage.

Very interesting. I will check it out further, thanks.

Check out git-annex (and the corresponding assistant). I haven't used it yet, but it supposedly supports S3 and glacier, and hard drives and will tell you where each file is backed up.

Interesting option. I might use this inside the LAN to manipulate the files on the NAS. The current setup is much simpler though: files that live in ZFS and incremental backups every day and every week.

Google Drive would be $120 / year for your 500 GB.

Interesting. I will have to see how this will handle encryption and large files.

In my experience - and from what I've seen in my subsequent frustrated research - Google Drive struggles with large files. I had a 9Gb VM that I split into 2GB pieces, and I still couldn't get one piece uploaded in a 24-hour period. Also, there is no progress display and it seems that a simple 'pause' of the sync restarts the process.

The GD client / back-end and large-file handling seems to be a long way behind the alternatives, sadly.

BackBlaze is pretty popular with the HN crowd and their pricing is still $5 a month for unlimited backup space.

Back blaze is out for two reasons: no Linux support and unlimited backups. I want to know exactly how much storage I can use up before hitting some abuse policy.

Isnt backblaze unlimited storage? I thought that was their main feature.

IgorPartola means that it is exactly this "unlimited" policy which chills her. She speculates (or knows) that there is some unspokenen abuse limit and she fears that she might hit it at some point.

I don't think this is relevant for you if you have less than a few Terabytes of data.

I'd recommend Arq (a great backup product for OS X).

It requires some technical chops to setup, but I doubt that would be a problem for you (or other people on HN).

http://www.haystacksoftware.com/arq/

This seems to be for backing up workstations. I have that covered already with TimeMachine and Ubuntu's backup services to the NAS box. Now I just need to back up the NAS itself. Thanks for the suggestion though.

You can back up your NAS to rsync.net.

I could but for $1800/year I could also build at least 8 redundant NAS boxes with 2TB storage and stick them at my friend's houses. I could also just pay $180/year for S3. Your offering is VERY expensive though I am sure quality is top notch.

FWIW, the HN new-customer discount brings that down to $1200/year.

Probably ... 2x the price of S3, given the cost of data transfer which, for us, is zero.

It may not be for you, but some folks find phone support, 7d+4w snapshots, straight-up, native unix interoperability and 2 free physical delivery events per year to be compelling.

Cheers!

Reply on news.ycombinator.com