Is it time to switch to cloud backup?

[ptram]

Hi,

I've been doing Time Machine incremental backups from my Mac for years. I do it alternating two drives, for additional security (backup drives tend to fail, sooner or later).

I've a stable ~100Mbps internet connection, that should be enough for cloud backup on something like Backblaze.

The cost is very reasonable (about 100 USD a year). There are no limits of size, contrary to local drives. Recovery in case of total disaster could be even easier than from local drives, considering Backblaze's service of disk delivery at home.

Is there any reason to continue doing backup on local disks, instead of using cloud backup?

Paolo

Click to read more...

 

[AudioLoco]

I would never trust anyone with my work data.
If someone will lose it it will be me

 

[MartinH.]

I've a stable ~100Mbps internet connection, that should be enough for cloud backup on something like Backblaze.

I have 100mbps too and based on my location I wasn't able to nearly max out that bandwidth with backblaze uploads. Their support confirmed at the time that this was a technical limitation that neither they nor I could do anything about. Things might be different now, but it is worth investigating / testing before you jump in headfirst. For me it simply was unviable.

Also I don't like "automagic" solutions all that much. I'm using online storage from a different company where I upload things with the tool "beyond compare" via webdav. That only syncs manually and only my work projects folder, but it feels more "under my control" than a tool like backblaze would.

 

[mindcandy]

Is there any reason to continue doing backup on local disks, instead of using cloud backup?

Hi Paolo,

Yes, there is.

The common practice for ensuring you have backups is commonly referred to as '3-2-1' which means:

• 3 copies of your data
• 2 different mediums
• 1 offsite

The solution you are describing from Backblaze (excellent service provider) is your '1 offsite'.

You would still want to have the prior redundancies. For example, your own local / external storage drive as a 'different medium' - IE: a periodically powered on (for syncing) and then powered off and stored in a drawer gets you one of your two different mediums whereas your live data would be the other.

In a good solution you would have potentially a Network Attached Storage that keeps a local backup of your data. You have a live version of the data that exists on your computer. You also have a copy of this on a hard drive. There are tools to keep these relatively effortlessly in sync. Finally you would have your cloud storage provider as your offsite backup.

Without the above, you run the risk of having a bad time if the worst were to occur. Various people have different definitions of worst so they may use less than the above. It all depends on how much you value your data.

Good luck!

 

[HCMarkus]

Is there any reason to continue doing backup on local disks, instead of using cloud backup?

I use BackBlaze AND Time Machine (on occasionally rotated hard drives). Plus daily "end of session" manual backups to an SSD.

Mindcandy lays things out nicely, but note that Time Machine preserves important aspects of your computer that BB does not: system and applications. As such, it is an important part of your backup strategy.

The ever-increasing size of hard drives has allowed me to occasionally roll my local Long Term Storage Drive into a new, larger Archive Drive, both of which back up only to BackBlaze, with additional redundancy maintained by cold-storage old Long Term drives.

The slow BB upload speed is, for me, a non-issue. Overnight and all is well. Initial backup did take a couple of weeks... I did it back during Covid, when my ISP had temporarily removed data caps. If I were doing it today, I'd pay for unlimited data until all data was uploaded.