Hi! I’m looking for a good cloud storage provider for my backups. I will encrypt them locally and rclone them, so integration is important. I’ve been looking through reddit, and every single provider has something behind their ears (closes accounts, scans files, sketchy, blah blah blah), so I’m having a bit of an analysis paralysis.

Free tier would be ideal. I don’t need a lot of space, just a few GBs. Thanks :)

    • @BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
      13•2 years ago

      I’m always suspicious of a service that doesn’t publish fees/costs up front.

      Sure, they have a trial. But with no idea what the costs are like, I’m not wasting my time with testing or requesting a quote.

      I despise these kinds of sales tactics.

      • blindlystupidEnglish
        1•2 years ago

        1

        true, in case of cubbit is a bad move…italians…cant help it…anyway, their services are worth each cent

  • krellor
    4•2 years ago

    AWS S3 has a free tier that covers the first 5Gb. I recommend it because the AWS cli is excellent, and gives you lots of options for how to sync your data. The pricing is $0.023/GB/month after the free tier. It can be overwhelming to get into AWS but it is worth it to have access to the ultimate IT service swiss army knife.

      • krellor
        1•2 years ago

        It’s complicated. I gave the most expensive pricing, which is their fastest tier and includes stripping across three availability zones and guarantees 11 nines of data durability. Additionally, the easy integration with all other AWS services and the feature richness of S3 buckets makes it hard to do a fair apple to apple comparison unless you really have well defined needs. So I gave the highest price to keep it simple, and for someone who says they just have a few GB, any cost should be trivial.

        • @Decipher0771@lemmy.caEnglish
          1•2 years ago

          How much is their cheapest glacier tier? Seems complicated to calculate, seems there’s some relation to s3 storage or I’m just missing something? Haven’t looked that closely.

          • krellor
            2•2 years ago

            So you just asked the most confusing thing about AWS service names due to how names changed over time.

            Before S3 had an archival tier, there existed a separate service that AWS named AWS Glacier Storage, and then renamed to AWS S3 Glacier.

            Around 2012 AWS started adding tiers to S3 which made the standalone service redundant. I received you look at S3 proper unless you have something like a Synology that can directly integrate with the older job based API used by the original glacier service.

            So, let’s say I have a 1TB archival file, single tarball, and I upload it to a brand new S3 bucket, without version, special features, etc, except it has a life cycle policy to move objects from S3 standard to S3 Glacier instant access after 0 days. So effectively, I upload the file and it moves to Glacier class storage.

            The S3 standard is ~$24/tb/month, and lets say worst case scenario our data sits on standard for one whole day before moving.

            $0.77+$0.005 (API cost of the put)

            Then there is the lifecycle charge to move the data from standard to glacier, with one request per object each way. Since we only have one object the cost is

            $0.004 out of standard
            $0.02 into glacier

            The cost of glacier instant tier is $4.1/tb/month. Since we would be there all but one day, the cost on the first bill would be:

            $3.95

            The second month onwards you would pay just the $4.1/month unless you are constantly adding or removing.

            Let’s say six months later you download your 1tb archive file. That would incur a cost of up to $30.

            Now I know that seems complicated and expensive. It is, because it is providing services to me in my former role as director of engineering, with complex needs and budgets to pay for stuff. It doesn’t make sense as a large-scale backup of personal data, unless you also want to leverage other AWS services, or you are truly just dumping the data away and will likely never need to retrieve it.

            S3 is great for complying with HIPAA, feeding data into a cdn, and generally dumping data around in performant way. I’ve literally dropped a petabyte off data into S3 and it just took it and did its thing.

            In my personal AWS account I use S3 as a place to dump cache contents built by lambda functions and served up by API gateway. Doing stuff like that is super cheap. I also use private git repos (code commit), private container registry (ecr), and container host (ECS), and it is nice have all of that stuff just click together.

            For backing up my personal computer, I use iDrive personal and OneDrive, where I don’t have to worry about the cost per object, etc. iDrive (not an Apple service) let’s you backup multiple devices to their platform and keeps them versioned.

            Anyway, happy to help answer questions. Have a great day.

            • @Decipher0771@lemmy.caEnglish
              1•2 years ago

              Wow. Thank you for that incredibly detailed explanation!!

              It does sound like though that it is POTENTIALLY cheaper than something like B2, but also much easier to misconfigure and end up in a more expensive tier.

              Seems to me unless you have a reason to use Amazon storage or already have something using it, using it for backup isn’t the best idea.

  • @eek2121@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1•2 years ago

    I use onedrive because you can get like 6TB of space included with Office for like $99/year. Second choice would be backblaze.

    Out of curiosity, as someone thinking about starting a cloud/hosting provider, what features would make a huge difference to you beyond price? I do plan to have some pretty amazing pricing for individuals/small businesses, but beyond that….

    • Footnote2669OPEnglish
      1•2 years ago

      Full rclone/kopia/restic/borg/etc compatibility, down to 2FA (thing that Mega lacks on unfortunately), encryption, someone could probably use versioning. As long as it’s private and easy to use and understand :)

  • @CaptObvious@literature.cafeEnglish
    2•2 years ago

    If you’re encrypting locally, a free Nextcloud provider would probably do the trick. Use one in Europe for better privacy rights.

  • yeehawEnglish
    7•2 years ago

    I’m using backblaze. I use truenas. I encrypt before send. Not sure about a free tier but I think I’m using a couple terabytes

    • @Railison@aussie.zoneEnglish
      2•2 years ago

      Backbone has an option where you can store the encryption key yourself if you don’t want others accessing your files. Of course, the usual caveats around being extra careful with that key apply.

    • @rambos@lemm.eeEnglish
      4•2 years ago

      I think 10GB of storage is free and then 6$ for 1TB. There is also a cost if you want to download backup, but its free for 3x of the data stored. Amazing for backups

        • @rambos@lemm.eeEnglish
          1•2 years ago

          Yeah I saw that, but not sure how it works in detail tbh. Anyway, I had 10GB that increased to 200GB recently and it cost me 2$ since April this year. That was for storage and few downloads to test bckups. I trck the cost and so far Im happy

  • @doeknius_gloek@feddit.deEnglish
    4•2 years ago

    Wasabi S3 is nice and cheap. You’ll only pay what you use, so probably just a few cents in your case.

    Oops, nevermind:

    If you store less than 1 TB of active storage in your account, you will still be charged for 1 TB of storage based on the pricing associated with the storage region you are using.

    • ErisEnglish
      3•2 years ago

      Tbf it’s like 8 bucks a TB for anyone else reading this with 500 gigs or more

    • LupecEnglish
      5•2 years ago

      I’ve been using Hetzner with borg for a while now and it’s been super solid, can’t be beaten price wise either as far as I’ve looked

  • @_Analog_@lemmy.worldEnglish
    10•2 years ago

    Backblaze b2 and rsync.net (which shouldn’t be a problem for rclone)

    Neither is sketchy in the slightest and run solid services with many options.

  • @nomecks@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1•2 years ago

    Why rclone? S3 sync the files on a schedule, enable versioning for immutability and encrypt at the bucket level.

  • @JakeMakes@lemmy.worldEnglish
    4•2 years ago

    Check out storj. It is S3 compatible. If you upload from cli it encrypts localy and if you upload from web then it encrypts server side(you can still encrypt locally) data is stored in chunks so no one place has all you data. Old free tier was 50gb now its 25. You are paying for what you use. I use it at work for backing up time series database. I really like the ide and consept behind it.

        • @BearOfaTime@lemm.eeEnglish
          2•2 years ago

          That’s about $2/TB cheaper than Backblaze B2. Nice.

          Looks like they make it up on egress costs, which aren’t even bad at all for my use-case (4TB total currently).

          Thanks!

          For those wondering, it’s www.storj.io

        • @Gooey0210@sh.itjust.worksEnglish
          2•2 years ago

          Now I can’t choose When I started using b2 it was a really good option But now I’m reading and can’t decide between storj and hetzner with their $4 for tb with free traffic

  • @MigratingtoLemmy@lemmy.worldEnglish
    1•2 years ago

    Scaleway S3-compatible storage with Duplicati.

    Edit: if it’s text-files I’d just use plain S3 (since ease of orchestration with Terraform) but whatever you decide to go with. I see that you have selected BackBlaze B2 which is quite good