525 karma · joined September 17, 2008
B2 Glacier
Storage: $0.005/GB/mo === $0.004-$0.005/GB/mo (by region)Upload: Free === Free + $0.05/1000 transactions
Download: $0.02/GB === $0.05-$0.09/GB
Retrieval Fee: Free === $0.003-$0.03/GB + $0.003-$0.03/1000 requests
Retrieval Time: Milliseconds === 1 min - 12 hours
In short, unless you only upload very large individual files, do nothing with them, and don't access any of them for at least 10 years...B2 is lower cost. (And, of course, doesn't required you to wait to get them out.)
Can you tell me more about how you use/would use cloud storage? (with or without compute)
I'd love to hear what you haven't done in the past due to bandwidth/download pricing that you'd have wanted to...?
Gleb @ Backblaze
What are you considering using B2 for & where is the data stored now?
However, don't be misled...this is the beginning, not the end. So please give us feedback on our APIs, what features/functionality you need, what other products you want to integrate B2, what information do you want to know, and basically how else we can help!
And thank you for all the support over the years,
Gleb (ceo, backblaze)
Considering a 4 TB hard drive has to track 32,000,000,000 individual bits, allowing reading and writing repeatedly of each one, on platters that are spinning 120x per second, spaced a hair's width from their heads...I think it's actually incredible.
As for SSDs, we keep wishing that we could switch to them, but they're still 10x more expensive on a $/TB basis. That may change in the next few years, and if it does, we'll look forward to sharing data on SSD usage at scale as well.
Gleb (CEO, Backblaze)
Many SMART stats aren't particularly useful in predicting failure as they simply correlate to the age of the drive in some fashion.
Also, here is our data on every single SMART stat for all of the drives we have: https://www.backblaze.com/blog-smart-stats-2014-8.html
Gleb (CEO, Backblaze)
If your cost of storage is high on a relative basis, B2 may be a cost efficient alternative.
Gleb from Backblaze
Nearline, S3-IA, and Glacier are all made for 'infrequent access'. All charge you for deleting files and retrieving files (on top of bandwidth.) Near line has a 3 second latency to first file and Glacier has a 4 hour wait. S3-IA has a minimum file size they charge for.
All of those restrictions might be fine...just depends on the use case. But B2 is designed to be used not only for 'infrequently accessed' files...but also for frequently accessed ones.
And all of other services are still 40% - 250% more expensive for their base storage costs.
Hope that helps. Not trying to hide anything and we'd love to have you give Backblaze B2 a try. (And to provide us feedback or ask us questions about anything else!)
Gleb from Backblaze
At the same time, we're working with partners who will abstract our B2 API to make it akin to the S3 API.
Gleb from Backblaze
Appreciate the feedback and we'll take a look at that rsync utility. We're also working on a simple client app that will do rsync with B2.
We're also starting to work with partners to offer a variety of other integrations. Duplicity and HashBackup have integrated B2, and Duplicati has an early alpha version. Someone is working on a FUSE integration. So hopefully soon there will be many ways to use B2. We'll list them here: https://www.backblaze.net/b2/docs/integrations.html
Please keep sharing feedback of what you need and how you'd use it!
Gleb from Backblaze