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.
![[No title]](/data/xfmg/thumbnail/31/31751-fb2f68cca32f9eec468dbde7d649840f.jpg?1734160471)
