Someone on Lemmy posted a phrase recently: "If you're not prepared to manage backups then you're not prepared to self host."
This seems like not only sound advice but a crucial attitude. My backup plans have been fairly sporadic as I've been entering into the world of self hosting. I'm now at a point where I have enough useful software and content that losing my hard drive would be a serious bummer. All of my most valuable content is backed up in one way or another, but it's time for me to get serious.
I'm currently running an Ubuntu Server with a number of Docker containers, and lots of audio, video, and documents. I'd like to be able to back up everything to a reliable cloud service. I currently have a subscription to proton drive, which is a nice padding to have, but which I knew from the start would not be really adequate. Especially since there is no native Linux proton drive capability.
I've read good things about iDrive, S3, and Backblaze. Which one do you use? Would you recommend it? What makes your short list? what is the best value?
I think it depends on your needs. IIUC their storage is "single location". Like a very significant natural disaster could take it offline or maybe even lose it. Something like S3 or Google Cloud Storage (depending on which durability you select) is multi-location (as in significantly distinct geographical regions). So still very likely that you will never lose any data, but in the extreme cases potentially you could.
If I was storing my only copy of something it would matter a lot more (although even then you are best to store with multiple providers for social reasons, not just technical) but for a backup it is fine.
Enabling multi DC redundancy is really easy though. The other providers you mentioned may have it by default, but they're also a lot more expensive.
I love that they let me pick my own redundancy strategy, without forcing me to pay for theirs
I think I see what you're saying.
B2 has multiple data centers around the world - at least 3 in the US and 1 in EU, that I know of. If you want your data replicated, you have to create buckets in multiple locations and connect them for replication, which they'll do for you (the replication).
If you're saying that they don't automatically store multiple copies of your data in multiple locations for you, for free, you're right. But they do have multiple data centers located around the world, and you can create multiple buckets and configure them for automatic replication so you have redundancy. You have to pay for the storage at each replicated location, though. If you want a bucket in Sacramento, it'll cost you those pennies. If you want it replicated to Rest on, you'll pay double the pennies. If you want it also replicated to Amsterdam, triple the pennies.
I don't think it's fair to say that they're single location that could have a natural disaster and you therefore lose your storage. It's only like that if you set it up that way, and it's pretty trivial to set up global replication - it just costs more.
That's true. And I'm not saying B2 is bad, it is just something that you should be aware of.
Their automatic replication isn't quite as seamless as GCS or S3 though. For example deletes aren't replicated so you will need a cleanup strategy. Plus once you 2x or 3x the price B2 isn't as competitive on price. My point is that it is very easy to compare apples to oranges looking at cloud storage providers and it is important to be aware.
For me B2 is a great fit and I am happy with it, but I don't wan to mislead peope.
Great clarifications!