Need Online Photo Backup Advice Please... Does anyone use Backblaze?

[sb_sparky]

Hi there,

I am trying to figure out the best and safest way to backup my photos. It is a constant worry for me because my computer is needing to be replaced and is older.

I have close to 250,000 photos on my computer as well as 461 GB of video. Right now we have some of the photos/vidoe on an external hard drive but not all. We signed up for Backblaze 9 months ago but I have not really heard of them and want to see what you all think. Do you think using an online backup as the main "backup" is the safest method?

I would love to know what you use and think are the safest forms of backup. Also, how many places are your photos backed up too?

Thanks
Allison

 

[Light Guru]

Online backup is nice but with the amount of data you have it would take 1-3 months yes months to upload.

 

[480sparky]

I use 4 external drives to back up my stuff.

 

[sb_sparky]

Yes, it took 4 months to backup!! Now it backs up in real time every time we add something. I am just not sure if using online backup is a great primary backup method.

Online backup is nice but with the amount of data you have it would take 1-3 months yes months to upload.

 

[Light Guru]

I would actually recommend both online and local backup. Local so you can more easily retrieve files but online so your data is safe if your house burns down or is completely flooded. I would just make sure that the online backup service you choose has the option of them mailing you a drive with your files on it so you don't have to download that much stuff.

 

[mayhem7]

Online backup? .. It's not very expensive, and it's as close to 100% safe as it gets.
I have used Livedrive: Network Backup which I can definitely recommend. They are not the cheapest, but they have many really smart features.

 

[mayhem7]

Or maybe just use flicker or Photobucket. They offer full-size and full quality if you pay for the subscription. Photo Bucket I use flickr myself..

 

[Gaerek]

I use 4 external drives to back up my stuff.

I hope your 4 external drives are fire/flood/theft proof.

This is why online backup is good, even if you have a local backup.

 

[Erik638]

I use phanfare as a way to back up and share my photos & video's

 

[usayit]

I use 4 external drives to back up my stuff.

I hope your 4 external drives are fire/flood/theft proof.

This is why online backup is good, even if you have a local backup.

Or you can just keep some of your external backs at work or something....

As for inexpensive online backup.... You sure that its safe? You sure that its guaranteed? Don't make assumptions. Real safe secure data warehouse solutions are not cheap and the old adage applies: "You get what you pay for." If they go under with dataloss or out of business, what are you going to do? Many/most have disclaimers protecting them.

As for storing on services like flickr, I don't like the compression they use (not sure if you can get the original back). Read the Terms of Service agreements too; For Flickr, specifically under the heading: "CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES" to see if you are comfortable with what they can and cannot do with the images uploaded.


BackBlaze terms of agreement: Read the All Caps statement under heading "Disclaimer of Warranty; Limitation of Liability "
Backblaze - Terms and Agreement


Manage multiple copies yourself. I personally trust using my own external hard drives than rely on some online storage to some company with no vested interest in keeping my data safe. $5(or less)/month doesn't buy very much peace of mind. Hard drives are cheap these days... and a whole lot faster than pushing over the network.

 

[Gaerek]

Or you can just keep some of your external backs at work or something....

I see where you're coming from, and I'm not disagreeing with you totally here, but no solution is perfect, not even yours. There are obvious flaws to the way you keep offsite backups, just as there are in using an online service. For instance, you now have to transport your discs physically from location to location. How secure is that? You need to come up with a way of archiving everything, and keeping track of where everything is, what drives hold what, and so forth. I'm not saying it can't be done, I do things like this everyday at work, but it's something you need to figure out. In addition, could your work possibly be affected by the same disaster as your home? I live in a tsunami zone, for instance, (Sitka, AK) and both my home and work (my home is actually further out of harms way than work) could be potentially wiped out by one. Keeping copies at work makes no sense in this case. Again, I'm positive you have all this figured out, but for many people, this isn't really an option. Keeping your own offsite backups will not work for many people.

As for inexpensive online backup.... You sure that its safe? You sure that its guaranteed? Don't make assumptions. Real safe secure data warehouse solutions are not cheap and the old adage applies: "You get what you pay for."

To call it cheap is somewhat wrong. You yourself even say that drive space is cheap later on. It costs pennies a month for these companies to store many Gigs of data. They are making money hand over fist. Many of them (not sure about BackBlaze) keep redundant copies of your data at multiple data centers around the country (or world, as applicable). This prevents a disaster in one geographical location from completely destroying your data. You are right about the enterprise level solutions, but then again, a lot of that data is measured in Tbytes, and even Pbytes in some cases, and they have MUCH more stringent measures they are required by law to follow. HIPAA, FERPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, and GLBA, to name of few. In the case of a consumer level online backup solution, there are few, if any, regulations they are required to follow. Instead, they rely on the free market to keep them honest, which in many cases, is the best regulation you can have. Let's not forget that the bandwidth needs of an enterprise level offsite backup are FAR greater than any user. Comparing Backblaze to something like Data Preserve would be like comparing a Cessna 182 to a Cessna Citation VII. Sure, they're both airplanes, and will fly, but the 182 simply won't work for that large corporation that needs access to places across the world, quickly, and the Citation is way too expensive, and is severe overkill for a private pilot who just wants to be able to fly.

If they go under with dataloss or out of business, what are you going to do? Many/most have disclaimers protecting them.

If there's a fire/flood/break-in at your work (or wherever you keep your backs), what are you going to do? The pendulum swings both ways, in this case. In any event, whether you manage your offsite or pay someone (backblaze, carbonite, mozy, whatever) if you don't keep an onsite backup, you're asking for trouble. So the answer to both of our questions is, "restore from my onsite, and find another offsite ASAP." As far as disclaimers, just because you have a disclaimer doesn't mean you're protected in court. It certainly helps, but saying, "We offer you secure, guaranteed service!" while your ToS states, "If something happens, we aren't at fault!" is almost certainly going to be contested in court if something happens. There's also a good chance that company will end up paying a huge settlement to those who were screwed. And these companies aren't stupid, they know this too. And I know, money isn't a substitute for losing your photos. But, it is a motivating factor for a backup company.

As for storing on services like flickr, I don't like the compression they use (not sure if you can get the original back). Read the Terms of Service agreements too; For Flickr, specifically under the heading: "CONTENT SUBMITTED OR MADE AVAILABLE FOR INCLUSION ON THE YAHOO! SERVICES" to see if you are comfortable with what they can and cannot do with the images uploaded.

Couldn't agree more. Photosharing sites are not photostorage. Smugmug (not sure about other paid services) can be used in that way, and they don't compress as all, but they are not designed for storage.

BackBlaze terms of agreement: Read the All Caps statement under heading "Disclaimer of Warranty; Limitation of Liability "
Backblaze - Terms and Agreement

Again, disclaimers mean very little in the real world. They might offer some protection if one user lost their data. But they won't provide any protection in the case of a severe incident.

Manage multiple copies yourself. I personally trust using my own external hard drives than rely on some online storage to some company with no vested interest in keeping my data safe. $5(or less)/month doesn't buy very much peace of mind. Hard drives are cheap these days...

If it works for you, then great! I disagree that a company has no vested interest in keeping data safe. If they start to lose people's data, then they start to lose customers. Free market in action. I've never heard of any issues from the company I use and I did a lot of research before settling on them. If I had seen even a couple instances where people lost their data, I wouldn't be using them. My peace of mind lies in my entire backup scheme, not just the company I push data to every night. I do not trust any single aspect of my backup scheme, however, when put together, its about as secure as I can reasonably make it.

and a whole lot faster than pushing over the network.

This is very true. HOWEVER, once you have your initial push taken care of (and I admit, it could take months, depending on how much data, your bandwidth, etc), it takes no time at all for daily backups, and you don't have to worry about manipulating anything yourself.

Bottom line is this, both solutions will work. Both solutions have their own problems and points of failure. Both solutions also require user interaction in at least two ways:

1. They both basically require that you have an onsite backup. So with your onsite, and offsite backups, you should have at least three copies of ALL your data. I actually keep two onsite copies, because I'm paranoid.
2. They both require that you actively check to make sure everything is backed up properly. When my offsite tells me everything is backed up, I check it afterwards. You still should do this with your solution as well.

All in all, whatever you choose will work, as long as you choose something, and understand YOUR responsibilites when it comes to ensuring the integrity and availabilty of YOUR data.

 

[usayit]

Or you can just keep some of your external backs at work or something....

I For instance, you now have to transport your discs physically from location to location. How secure is that?

Pretty darn secure since it doesn't leave my sight nor hooked up to any computer in transit. While in office, its locked in my drawer. My office is a datacenter and is most likely hardened against fire and intrusion... like most office buildings. My speciality is in disaster recovery. They transport archival tapes to and from storage. If its good enough for them its good enough for us. Lets not forget... transit time is often less than a day. Its not like we are transporting trade secrets. Network traffic isn't secure.... and are you prepared to turn over the security of that data to some unknown $5/month service?

You need to come up with a way of archiving everything, and keeping track of where everything is, what drives hold what, and so forth. I'm not saying it can't be done, I do things like this everyday at work, but it's something you need to figure out. In addition, could your work possibly be affected by the same disaster as your home? I live in a tsunami zone, for instance, (Sitka, AK) and both my home and work (my home is actually further out of harms way than work) could be potentially wiped out by one. Keeping copies at work makes no sense in this case. Again, I'm positive you have all this figured out, but for many people, this isn't really an option. Keeping your own offsite backups will not work for many people.

You should know than... no DR or the preparation of such is 100%... its called mitigation and assessment of risk with balancing cost. If both work and home are in flood zones... sure lock it up in a bank (it costs a little more)

No need to know what is on each drive... why? Because I said duplication... so a simple date is enough (post it note). Its not like I am suggesting base and incrementals here.....

To call it cheap is somewhat wrong. You yourself even say that drive space is cheap later on. It costs pennies a month for these companies to store many Gigs of data. They are making money hand over fist.

This is an area of work expertise for me... I assure you, its not cheap. Storage is cheap... SECURE GUARANTEED storage is not. Liability insurance is also major factor.

Many of them (not sure about BackBlaze) keep redundant copies of your data at multiple data centers around the country (or world, as applicable). This prevents a disaster in one geographical location from completely destroying your data

I don't believe it at $5 per month. Data centers are not cheap.

.You are right about the enterprise level solutions, but then again, a lot of that data is measured in Tbytes, and even Pbytes in some cases, and they have MUCH more stringent measures they are required by law to follow. HIPAA, FERPA, Sarbanes-Oxley, and GLBA, to name of few.
<snip>
In the case of a consumer level online backup solution, there are few, if any, regulations they are required to follow.

This is my point.... services are largely unregulated. I can setup a few glorified file servers in friend's basements from NYC, CA, and TX. I qualify for multiple data centers.

Anyways.. its your choice. Don't care about your data.... but the whole point of business is turn a profit. You can't do that on $5/month AND maintain a quality of service with promise of liability. Its simply common sense. There's lots of assumptions being made. Like disclaimers meaning little..... I don't know about you, but 99% of the companies can easily consume my resources in legal fees. By using their services you are agreeing to them... that's going to be very difficult to fight.


Sarbanes-Oxley regulations are really the only one at play here... none of us are dealing with Health, Financial and Educational private information. In a very short explanation (among many other things), it puts into place requirements to essentially prove recoverability and business continuity as well as liability. That burden is on the company or subscriber rather than the provider (who I up until recently worked for - the largest one in the nation). The provider according to contract is obligated to provide a certain level of security and service.... AND be LIABLE. This is required as one of many things to satisfy the audit (they have to also hold mock DR recoveries also). See how it works? As such, as regular consumer (the subscriber) has little leverage over such online backup services.. legally. Wouldn't expect to at $5/month fee... and little incentive as anything more cuts the bottom line. If you are unrecoverable at the time you need them most, you'll most likely get "I'm sorry" and "Please read the disclaimer".

The real service is EXTREMELY EXTREMELY expensive... AND get this... if there is a massive outage, with many disaster declarations, most contracts are subject to first come, first served basis. If they need guaranteed requirements driven by recovery time objectives, they usually opt for dedicated space and resources (even more expensive) in a cage.

Its your choice... trust your own strategy or some marketing filled website.


I do admit... its mighty convenient... if that's good enough, heck $5/month is not much to pay.