Looking for cloud backup recommendations

Forums › Desktop computing › Looking for cloud backup recommendations

lurker

831 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#319178 31-Mar-2025 08:49

I have personal server with around 70TB data and physical backups onsite.
Looking at the different services, so far I'm leaning towards Backblaze for cloud backup.
Interested in any other recommendations.
Encryption required.
This is just an archive backup - maybe updating once or twice a year.
Don't need versioning.
Time to restore can be weeks or however long it takes, no urgency.

1 | 2

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359043 31-Mar-2025 14:01

BackBlaze is probably best, and cost effective. It's not for archival though, it's for backup of your PC.

Otherwise even with AWS S3 in deep archive tier you're looking at US$70 per month. B2 you're paying $6 per TB per month.

At this data volume I wonder if you'd be better off with tapes stored somewhere secure.

marpada

475 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3359064 31-Mar-2025 14:45

Price-wise Backblaze B2 will be hard to beat. I've also used rsync.net as it supports the ssh protocol so you can use tools like rsync or borg, but their pricing model is not Pay-as-you-use as cloud storage providers.

KiwiSurfer

1449 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Lifetime subscriber

#3359065 31-Mar-2025 14:45

AWS S3 is very fast, reliable and offers a range of different S3 products. Their glacier service are probably the cheapest if you can tolerate the limitations e.g. no instant access if you should need to download in the future. Only downside is their API -- it's not a simple SFTP service but its very own service which doesn't really use standard protocols.

B2 is often pointed to as cheaper than S3. That is true if you compare B2 with the most expensive S3 product -- but once you go to the cheaper/glacier ones the B2 price advantage disappears. This makes B2 only cheaper if you want hot storage and free transfers. If you're just archiving without any regular downloads then B2 may not be worth it.

I currently use rsync.net and Hetzner Storage Box. Both offer standard SFTP access which makes syncing files/folders very easy. However I only deal with around 1TB which keeps the prices down. Not sure how either service would fare with 70TB and as mentioned above the prices will be quite a lot.

Following with interest as my storage needs may increase beyond 1TB and am interested in other people's approaches to this.

marpada

475 posts

Ultimate Geek

#3359115 31-Mar-2025 14:50

KiwiSurfer:

AWS S3 is very fast, reliable and offers a range of different S3 products.

S3 (or other provider that charges egress traffic) will probably bankrupt OP if had to download a 70Tb archive.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359116 31-Mar-2025 14:55

marpada:

Price-wise Backblaze B2 will be hard to beat. I've also used rsync.net as it supports the ssh protocol so you can use tools like rsync or borg, but their pricing model is not Pay-as-you-use as cloud storage providers.

I'm confused... B2 is $6 per TB per month, AWS S3 deep archive is $1 per TB per month. BackBlaze's consumer backup product is a fixed monthly fee... different things.

timmmay

20574 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359119 31-Mar-2025 14:58

marpada:

KiwiSurfer:

AWS S3 is very fast, reliable and offers a range of different S3 products.

S3 (or other provider that charges egress traffic) will probably bankrupt OP if had to download a 70Tb archive.

It's US$5,800 to transfer 70TB out of AWS, plus $180 to restore it from archive to immediately accessible so it can be downloaded. That's on top of the US$70/month storage fee.

Local tape drive with offsite storage is probably much, much cheaper.

olivernz

497 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359147 31-Mar-2025 16:22

I use hashbackup.com for my servers to backup to Backblaze B2. Has worked for years and am very happy with it.

Equinox IT

Cloud spending continues to surge globally, but most organisations haven’t made the changes necessary to maximise the value and cost-efficiency benefits of their cloud investments. Download the whitepaper From Overspend to Advantage now.

CYaBro

4582 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3359152 31-Mar-2025 16:42

I would look for something that can backup to Wasabi.

No egress fees with them and cost is US$6.99 per month per TB but that will still be costly for 70TB.

Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

ANglEAUT

2320 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359178 31-Mar-2025 17:14

Thanks. Some interesting suggestions here.

Please keep this GZ community vibrant by contributing in a constructive & respectful manner.

CYaBro

4582 posts

Uber Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

#3359183 31-Mar-2025 17:37

Another option could be your own NAS placed at a family members or friends place who has fibre.
You could do the initial seed backup locally before setting it up at the remote location.

Opinions are my own and not the views of my employer.

olivernz

497 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359197 31-Mar-2025 17:50

CYaBro:

Another option could be your own NAS placed at a family members or friends place who has fibre.
You could do the initial seed backup locally before setting it up at the remote location.

This would have been my other suggestion. Especially since I assume most of that data is static. Backup long term data to some HDDs (hddsnz on trademe for example) and drop them at a location far away from you (you could post them). Then update them every 6m or so. The variable data gets uploaded to the cloud somewhere.

Shindig

1585 posts

Uber Geek

Trusted

#3359204 31-Mar-2025 18:41

Cloud too expensive.

Utilise tape storage and have them stored correctly.

The little things make the biggest difference.

olivernz

497 posts

Ultimate Geek

ID Verified

Trusted

Lifetime subscriber

#3359208 31-Mar-2025 18:53

Shindig:

Cloud too expensive.

Utilise tape storage and have them stored correctly.

The right solution depends on the $ value of what is stored. I have 321 so RAID NAS, backup to USB drive then upload to Backblaze. Then there are a few drives that are full with non changing Data lying around. I just use cheap internal drives that I chuck a USB adapter on.

lurker

831 posts

Ultimate Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3359256 31-Mar-2025 21:22

At the moment creating another HDD based backup is something I have planned for the future, due to cost.
To tide me over until then, $99 per year for Backblaze is appealing. Other options seem much more expensive

Once HDD capacities start getting closer to 40-50TB it would simplify things for me and I would certainly have an offsite HDD backup in a safe location.

Scott3

3963 posts

Uber Geek

Lifetime subscriber

#3359264 31-Mar-2025 21:55

If you are running windows (or an operating system which qualifies for blazeback unlimited), than the $99/year plan is incredible value with your amount of data.

Note that Synology NAS and the likes don't qualify, requiring the per TB business plan.

Note it is not for cold storage - If a drive is disconnected (or fails in a way it appears disconnected), Blaze back will remove the backup after 1 month has passed.

1 | 2