this post was submitted on 18 Apr 2026
325 points (99.4% liked)

Technology

83929 readers
3022 users here now

This is a most excellent place for technology news and articles.

Our Rules

  1. Follow the lemmy.world rules.
  2. Only tech related news or articles.
  3. Be excellent to each other!
  4. Mod approved content bots can post up to 10 articles per day.
  5. Threads asking for personal tech support may be deleted.
  6. Politics threads may be removed.
  7. No memes allowed as posts, OK to post as comments.
  8. Only approved bots from the list below, this includes using AI responses and summaries. To ask if your bot can be added please contact a mod.
  9. Check for duplicates before posting, duplicates may be removed
  10. Accounts 7 days and younger will have their posts automatically removed.

Approved Bots

founded 2 years ago
MODERATORS
L3s@lemmy.world
enu@lemmy.world
technopagan@lemmy.world
L4s@lemmy.world
L3s@hackingne.ws
325
Backblaze silently redefines 'unlimited' backups and users discover it's not backing up DB and OD — as firm leans heavier into AI storage services, changes could signal shift away from home backups (www.tomshardware.com)
submitted 1 day ago by floofloof@lemmy.ca to c/technology@lemmy.world
67 comments fedilink hide all child comments
 

cross-posted from: https://infosec.pub/post/45169245

DB = Dropbox, OD = Onedrive

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[–] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 8 points 22 hours ago (2 children)

rsync.net offers ZFS send/receive and I’ve been using it for 5 years now, it’s pretty great. It’s not super expensive per GB, but they ask a minimum of 5TB if you want native ZFS support, which is $60/month.

You get access to a full FreeBSD VM which is very nice, because you can do things like metrics or a “pull” setup that pulls backups from your machines, so you’re more resilient against stuff like ransomware.

[–] floofloof@lemmy.ca 9 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

Sounds good but $60 per month is a lot of money.

[–] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 2 points 14 hours ago

Yes it’s not the cheapest option, but I think it’s the only one if you need zfs send/receive. But if you don’t need it you can get less than 5TB for cheaper, or just go elsewhere.

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 9 points 21 hours ago (1 children)

This would increase my yearly cost from $99 to over 10k

[–] unlawfulbooger@lemmy.blahaj.zone 7 points 18 hours ago (1 children)

You have over 70TB of data you want to backup? That’s a lot. How are you making backups of that for only 99/year?

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 5 points 17 hours ago (1 children)

I have a 190TB NAS, and Backblaze is $99 for unlimited. At least it was until now

[–] xthexder@l.sw0.com 4 points 14 hours ago (1 children)

Backblaze is definitely losing money on you every year, so good luck finding an alternative. I pay $100+/month just in power and network costs to have my own hardware colocated in a real data center, and that's saving me money compared to renting 200TB anywhere else.

[–] Anivia@feddit.org 2 points 14 hours ago

Oh, I definitely know I'm not a profitable customer for them. My home electricity bill for my NAS is already a multiple of my Backblaze subscription