Storj instead of Backblaze #30

New Issue

lukas · 2024-04-30T17:32:53+02:00

lukas commented

2024-04-30 17:32:53 +02:00

Possibly migrating from Backblaze B2 to Storj DCS.

Storj is priced at just 4$/TB (with some additional segment fees) for storage, in comparison to Backblaze's 6$/TB + VAT.

While a decentralized backup might seem a bit risky, Storj appears to be very solid and has a good track record. According to them, they have never lost a single file.

Possibly migrating from Backblaze B2 to Storj DCS. Storj is priced at just 4$/TB (with some additional segment fees) for storage, in comparison to Backblaze's 6$/TB + VAT. While a decentralized backup might seem a bit risky, Storj appears to be very solid and has a good track record. According to them, they have never lost a single file.

lukas added the

labels 2024-04-30 17:32:53 +02:00

lukas self-assigned this 2024-04-30 17:32:53 +02:00

lukas added this to the Issue Board project 2024-04-30 17:32:53 +02:00

lukas commented

2024-04-30 17:33:55 +02:00

Currently needing to evaluate if:

rclone can be used, as in its P2P mode, it seems to only make 65 shards instead of 80
versioning works as intended and how lifecycles can be controlled
built in encryption is good enough (including in the old version of rclone)

Currently needing to evaluate if: - `rclone` can be used, as in its P2P mode, it seems to only make 65 shards instead of 80 - versioning works as intended and how lifecycles can be controlled - built in encryption is good enough (including in the old version of rclone)

lukas commented

2024-04-30 17:43:16 +02:00

Testing of a testfile (~90 MiB) showed consistency in MD5 sums regardless of using the Web UI or rclone.

lukas added

and removed

labels 2024-05-02 16:28:50 +02:00

lukas commented

2024-05-03 11:43:20 +02:00

Utilizing Storj would require a custom solution for managing lifetime of old/deleted objects: https://docs.storj.io/dcs/buckets/object-versioning

lukas commented

2024-05-18 16:32:27 +02:00

Closing this as Abandoned as workload required does not seem worth it.
Further ideas: Scaleway Glacier for backups, as it's just 2€/TB, no minimum retention periods, cheap API calls, located in a literal bomb shelter in Paris

Closing this as `Abandoned` as workload required does not seem worth it. Further ideas: Scaleway Glacier for backups, as it's just 2€/TB, no minimum retention periods, cheap API calls, located in a literal bomb shelter in Paris

lukas added the

Status

Abandoned

label 2024-05-18 16:32:32 +02:00

lukas closed this issue

2024-05-18 16:32:34 +02:00

lukas removed this from the Issue Board project 2024-05-18 16:32:46 +02:00

lukas referenced this issue

2024-06-02 21:09:51 +02:00

Switch away from Azure for mass-storage backups #37

Sign in to join this conversation.