Cloud Storage 2017
drasnor
Starship OperatorHawthorne, CA Icrontian
Howdy folks, I just had a hard drive failure and was mostly able to recover my important stuff. I'm looking to store my stuff on some kind of redundant system that I don't have to manage. Is anyone able to recommend a cloud storage solution with the following features?
1. > 40 GB data for < $20/year
2. Encrypted, no-snoop, fully-private storage with ironclad TOS such that I could be comfortable uploading my tax histories or other documents that list my full social security number or bank account and routing info. I don't need subpoena immunity but I'll take it if offered.
3. Local sync features comparable to OneDrive or Google Drive on Windows and Android. Bonus points for Linux support.
4. Three nines availability. This service must be as available as my Internet service.
5. Must not be known for losing data. Services which lose bytes of my stuff are useless to me.
6. Stable financials such that the company isn't likely to close up and leave me out in the cold within 10 years.
Suggestions?
Comments
I think you've ruled out most of the Internet with #6, let alone 1 & 2.
I doubt you'll find such a service, but creating one for yourself might not be terrible. Creating local, encrypted backups, then uploading those to Amazon Glacier is a pretty solid combo of all but 3.
A friend of mine recommended this service that seems to meet 2 through 6.
https://spideroak.com/solutions/spideroak-one
Kinda a bummer that their minimum service tier is twice as much storage as I want for thrice as much as I want to pay for it. I might inquire if they were willing to do 50 GB for $30.
Looks like competitive pricing to me.
As someone in SaaS, I'd bet there's no chance they'd take a half-for-half proposition. That they use GB as a tool to move you up price points doesn't mean they actually see $/GB as their costing model. It's just a sales proxy for a lot of factors.
//edit: It occurs to me it also undercuts your criteria #6 to attempt that.
TL;DR: You're almost certainly right about my chances but it really doesn't hurt to ask. That said, I'm probably just going to trial the service, develop an emotional attachment, and pay them whatever they want at the end of the trial period.
Considering storage costs, Amazon Web Services appears to be the gold standard for cloud storage and bills on a per-gigabyte with different classes for each class of transactions. At my usage, if I took @Tushon's suggestion and rolled my own service it would cost me roughly $2/year. I don't want to do that though because I don't want to solve the service provider problem. There is value in the service; assuming backend costs comparable to AWS that number is between $30 and $70/user/yr in this case based on their tiered offerings.
On their 100 GB service they would make >$50 a year off of me at a value-add of roughly 4000% over backend cost. If I'm successful, $/GB at my utilization would be halved with what I consider to be a quite-respectable 2000% value-add fraction for them. If I made full use of the 100 GB service then their value-add would only be 833%. It's perfectly rational for me to seek a more appropriate service tier.
I don't think your tragedy of the commons argument applies because it's not in their rational self-interest to enter into a deal that doesn't benefit them satisfactorily (i.e. they would just say no). They're in business to make a profit though so it might be worth it to them to have my business. If there's enough interest they might do a new service tier.
I've been meaning to try SpiderOak, but haven't gotten around to it yet. Let us know what you think of it if you try it out!
Why cloud? You only need 40GB of backup? External hard drive or NAS paired with Acronis True Image for daily differentials, and you're done. Bonus - unlike the cloud solution, if you have a hard drive failure, you're only looking at hours to get back up and running right where you left off (programs and settings and all) versus days for just your data with the cloud option.
Ryan I can't believe you of all people would advocate for a backup solution that didn't involve off-site. Always multiple back-ups. Always off-site.
On-site backups are totally useless for preventing data loss during disaster or theft.
On-site is nice for the transfer speed and convenience, but always off-site for things you can't afford to loose. I've got two new drives in RAID-1 on the NAS I won at EPIC, and then anything irreplaceable that needs to go offsite is going into an encrypted archive then onto a public butt.
Why not something like OwnCloud?
This is interesting and not something I had found previously. The main limitation I'm seeing is that I still need to run the OwnCloud server on another machine that's possibly independent of where the data is stored (e.g. Amazon S3). If the server is in my home, there is a bandwidth utilization issue wherein my home internet service upstream bandwidth bottlenecks service performance and I would need to obtain some server hardware since I don't have any on hand. If I rent a hosted server, I'm now paying additionally for the service hosting. Either way, I have to set it up and pay for some kind of DNS service. I need to get more detailed costs for all of these.
There's also the big downside that I'm now responsible for the well-being of this server. Maybe 15 years ago, I used to operate an internet-connected home server and made the hideous mistake of checking the logs for the outward-facing SSH server once. I haven't been brave enough to register outward-facing services since then.
I mean... web hosts usually have VPS solutions that KIND of work. To give you an idea, IMH will do 75GB for $30/mo. You can easily install owncloud on that.
It might not meet your security reqs, though. It's a VPS, so the IMH guys are in charge of the overall host, and like any web host, they retain root access.
If you WANT, you MIGHT be able to buy a sweet home NAS and you and I can work something out. Maybe I hook it up to one of the broken-ass servers I've commandeered at work (things that have bad DIMM slots or whatever so we can't give them to customers, so work just lets me run them in the corner). Or maybe I just store it underneath my desk at work, connected to the wifi, which can reach a broken-ass server via our backlan, which you have ssh access to? Only thing is I obviously wouldn't be maintaining the thing (yep, I'm putting you in charge of the well-being of the server), and you never know when I might lose my job, or when work might decide all our bitcoin miners and broken-ass servers have to go.
Another plan is just to get a buddy, have both of you get home servers, and scale something like owncloud across both... only I think at this point we're so far away from the 'I want it to sync' and 'I want it secure' that I can't imagine you'd want to bother.
I'm currently working on the details for setting myself up with Macrium Reflect (weekly full, daily diffs, rotate) and my Amazon Cloud Storage (the retail product, not S3/Glacier, which is $60/year for unlimited). The bonus of this is that I can encrypt/manage my backups outside of the storage bins, so Amazon can't give anyone anything useful if they are compelled.
Once I get that working to my satisfaction, I'm going to whack my CrashPlan sub.
I kind of like the idea of crashplan's "buddy-to-buddy" P2P backup system. From what I can find, the encryption is tight, and you're using your trusted friends' storage as remote cloud backup. I used to do this with Seth though I haven't seen him back up to me in a while.
On a side note, if any Icrontian wants to be my buddy and share encrypted backup space with me, just give the word.
My only problem with CrashPlan Buddy back up is that it doesn't seem to provide a way to back up that location if you have a subscribed setup.
I don't follow. I am a subscriber and I back up to others' computers.
I mean, the backup location that I would provide to others, I couldn't figure out how to make it back that up to my offsite CrashPlan.
I'm pleased using Amazon. As far as security goes I think they have been pretty transparent. They had a breech and instead of leaving me to guess if I may or may not have been compromised as soon as they knew about it they forced me to use two factor and change my password.
Another thing to consider, maybe there isn't one cloud for all things. Google Photos for pics, maybe you like Amazon for music, maybe you prefer Google, maybe you like the one drive system for certain types of documents.
If I can guide you away from something it is Carbonite. It used to be a very innovative service. It is so clunky now when you compare it to other services.
I believe a full on-site backup is the most important step, and then if budget permits, off-site backup as well. The off-site backup should be the second layer of protection, not the first or only one.
Those are all good points and definitely things I'd take into account for any backup system.
If you'd like me to make some concrete recommendations, I'd be happy to, but I don't like giving unsolicited advice if it's not desired.
A backup without off-site backup is not a backup at all. If you have no budget at all, putting shit onto a USB stick and taking it somewhere else will suffice, but without off-site you are not backed up.
This thread is all about soliciting advice. That said, in my overall calculus I don't rate the cost of reinstalling the OS and software very highly because synchronizing important files between the multiple computers gives me a reasonable facsimile of on-site backed up data with zero downtime simply by switching computers if one goes down.
I think I need a new back-up solution too. Crashplan's client won't stay up for more than a few minutes without crashing for the last few weeks. Anyone else having trouble with it?
I normally recommend CrashPlan to people, but maybe not right now?
I don't use it, but have you checked to see if the client is up-to-date? Coworker reports that personal edition has that problem frequently, while his pro account does not.
I use Backblaze for whole computer backup, but have never needed to restore from it, I'm unsure how good or bad that might be. Less technically inclined relatives get recommended Carbonite, but that has a few caveats as well.
Here is my latest hairbrain method. I welcome coments and or criticism on my new method. I call it The Doghouse because I have a doghouse my dog doesn't use and it is a well built insulated doggie home of the highest quality. Since Tank won't use it I started wondering what to do with it. Then my hairball idea hit. Put a backup drive in the doghouse! I took a hatchet and cut a small trench to the doghouse, which already had electricity then burried a length of cat 5 in the trench. 2 weeks later you never knew I buried the cable. 8 months later all still works and I do not forsee any issues. OK, now let me have it!
I have never had a single issue with Crashplan. It has been immaculately stable.
Sounds like what I'd do that if I was trying to hide my backups from the Feds.
I'm backing up a large amount of data, and it hits a memory limit. When I contacted CrashPlan a couple years ago, they suggested increasing the memory allocated to the service. I've since had to do this after a few Windows reinstalls. See this article: https://support.code42.com/CrashPlan/5/Troubleshooting/Adjusting_CrashPlan_Settings_For_Memory_Usage_With_Large_Backups
Or modify the CrashPlanService.ini folder to increase the allocated memory. This line snippet (modify -Xmx):
Virtual Machine Parameters=-Xrs -Xms15M -Xmx3072m
You should see my security cam setup. I hide cameras in trees, birdhouses, in place of light fixtures, in fake landscape rocks and I disguised one above the front door with a wasp nest I took off the eve. Then I put 3 broken cams in plain sight in dumb places that are obvious. You guys forget that I grew up in Eastern Pa. where the mob sent guys that needed to get out of circulation for a while. And Columbus Day was the biggest day of the year. That ain't no lie!
At least my backups won't end up on the news like some political candidate.