Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

I really want to like Backblaze and they seem to do a lot of good work, but whenever this comes up, I also feel responsible to let people know the dark side so they're informed at least.

I've written in more detail before[0], but just to share the gotchas in case anyone here is thinking of switching to Backblaze:

1. They backup almost no file metadata.

2. The client is very slow (days or more) to add new files and there's no transparency (it claims everything is backed up when it's not).

3. There are still bugs in the client that can put your backup into an invalid state where it gets deleted.

4. Support is terrible, and won't be any help when you run into these bugs.

[0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=16301626



As much as this is off topic, I'd like to continue this conversation. Do you have any details/reference for point 1?

I've been using rclone (got the recommendation here) which has been reliable.

Also, does anyone know if Backblaze has any plans to offer u2f? I've switched dns and email providers to get u2f.


Yeah, it's a bit old, but here's an article about Backblaze not supporting metadata. [0] "It fails all but one of the Backup Bouncer tests, discarding file permissions, symlinks, Finder flags and locks, creation dates (despite claims), modification date (timezone-shifted), extended attributes (which include Finder tags and the “where from” URL), and Finder comments."

And I don't know if it supports U2F, but it does support TOTP.

[0] https://mjtsai.com/blog/2014/05/22/what-backblaze-doesnt-bac...


I didn't like their main client very much (though it was a while ago) but I'm still planning to use B2 for some things. So it depends on what you're buying from them.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: