I'm both part of the reason prices are creeping up and have never had a bad experience on the home giant ass backup or their enterprise cloud solutions. They've never throttled me or pressures me in any way to reduce my backups. That's why I just picked up a one-year extension with Backblaze at the current pricing. An insurance policy can replace my house, but neither ZFS nor my homeowner's insurance can replace my data if my house no longer exists. I currently live in a place that occasionally gets tornados and floods.
Sure, I have a RAID on my network that all of my local machines backup to automatically, so if there's a hardware failure or garden variety data loss, I'll look there first, but none of that is a replacement for a remote backup. ZFS is fine, but nothing about it is inherently not geographically here in the way that a remote backup service is, so when a wildfire or flood or tornado destroys your home, ZFS can't help you restore your family photos unless it's part of a bigger system, whereas Backblaze can.įor my part, I've been using Backblaze for years. Unless you skipped a few other pieces to your setup, I don't see how ZFS is in any way a replacement for a remote backup system like Backblaze.
I will gladly continue paying $0.Īnd I've been using pi-hole for years.
0 kommentar(er)
