Cloud backup solutions

[zhenya]

Another vote for Crashplan here. Phenonmenal pricing, excellent software, great de-duplication and block level change monitoring. When you really compare the alternatives, Crashplan is an amazing deal.

I'm still waiting for someone to guarantee server security and consumer guaranteed ownership and retrieval should the company whose servers one uses cease trading/change of ownership. Until this happens I will use my own regime.

Crashplan has several different levels of security. At the most basic it is encrypted but Crashplan technically has access to your key. Level 2 is encryption on your computer with a password key only you know before transmission. Level 3 is encryption on your computer with a 128 bit key only you have before transmission. How, exactly, is this less safe than your local backups?

 

[maxosx]

I'm with you. I stick to my own backup and keep one offsite.

There's no way I'd put my personal records in the cloud. I am not adverse to cloud usage, I have quite a bit of non mission critical files up there.

But since I'm about 95% paperless, I gladly take the time to keep my data mine. I have invested the time & money to create a good backup system via NAS, including redundancy. Off site copies & all. It's great peace of mind & well worth it.

 

[zhenya]

There's no way I'd put my personal records in the cloud. I am not adverse to cloud usage, I have quite a bit of non mission critical files up there.

But since I'm about 95% paperless, I gladly take the time to keep my data mine. I have invested the time & money to create a good backup system via NAS, including redundancy. Off site copies & all. It's great peace of mind & well worth it.

What makes you think your own network is anymore secure than encrypted data stored in bulk at a datacenter with redundancy, secured by a key only you know?

 

[maxosx]

How, exactly, is this less safe than your local backups?

Respectfully, if you have to ask, you'll never understand.

----------

What makes you think your own network is anymore secure than encrypted data stored in bulk at a datacenter with redundancy, secured by a key only you know?

I run two networks at home. The one that does my backups is not connected to the web. Nothings more secure than that.

 

[zhenya]

Respectfully, if you have to ask, you'll never understand.

That's a cop-out answer if I ever heard one.

----------

I run two networks at home. The one that does my backups is not connected to the web. Nothings more secure than that.

If computers that are connected to the Internet are connected to that network, it's not secure. There are necessarily paths (and therefore vulnerabilities) between the two.

 

[Primejimbo]

The family plan is for all the computers that you own. It work irrespective of where you are located. Our computers work while we are traveling... as well as while home.

Students are also covered even though they live away from home. One daughter was covered while she was in graduate school out of the country.

Also... it is less than $120/yr if you buy a multi-year subscription. I pay $72 year for unlimited backup across all seven of our machines. Soon, that will be bumped to 8 machines. It is a total bargain.

/Jim

Thank you so much for your help!!!

 

[Kashsystems]

I have crashplan right now, Here are the things I love about crashplan.

By the way I have a single user account.

Fast speed, I upload between 3-5 megabytes (40mbps).

Will let me backup other computers on my network to a local drive/external drive connected to my iMac. Also allows me to make local backups an external hard drive.

Multiple versions in backup. Deleted a file 10 backups ago, you can still pull it up as long as you did not delete the old backups off their cloud system. So you can go back as far as you want as long as you have an active subscription.

 

[darkangel7696]

Crashplan looks like a very reputable site. Plus, I give them props for having clients for multiple OS, including Solaris and Linux. However, I am the paranoid type and, eventhough they have AES encryption, I don't trust my personal information/files n the hands of others.

Plus, given what has happened to other hosting sites and online storage/backup sites, such as Megaupload, it is not hard for the site to be taken offline with a COD or warrant; there goes your data with no way to easily get it back. Maybe I am being too cynical.

You could easily build a FreeNAS system with RAIDZ so you can withstand multiple hardrive failures. Plus, ZFS has many features for data encryption and recovery of the pool. It's not that expensive to build a freenas system.

 

[flynz4]

Crashplan looks like a very reputable site. Plus, I give them props for having clients for multiple OS, including Solaris and Linux. However, I am the paranoid type and, eventhough they have AES encryption, I don't trust my personal information/files n the hands of others.

• Do you have an email address? There is enough information in an email account to perform identity theft... and the email provider obviously has unencrypted access to your data.
  
• Do you have a bank account? The bank has unencrypted access to your account information... also for obvious reasons.

Those are just two examples of cloud usage where the company at hand has access to all of your data.

By contrast... cloud backup providers ONLY have access to HIGHLY ENCRYPTED data. The data is encrypted on your own machine. Unlike the bank and email provider... they cannot possibly see your data.

By far... the achilles heal of any backup system is local access to your house our business. A two bit junkie can have all your data within seconds.

I understand that some of you do not trust your backup data in the cloud... but compared to everything else... it is probably the safest thing that you have.

/Jim

 

[Weaselboy]

Plus, given what has happened to other hosting sites and online storage/backup sites, such as Megaupload, it is not hard for the site to be taken offline with a COD or warrant; there goes your data with no way to easily get it back. Maybe I am being too cynical.

This is true of any online backup solution. But I don't see anybody here suggesting you ONLY keep your data with Crashplan or similar. Crashplan is just a secondary backup site. So if say Crashplan goes bankrupt tomorrow and closes down, I have lost no data. I sign up the next day with another online backup service and all is well.

 

[Lankyman]

The data is encrypted on your own computer... using a key that you control. Even if you were to place your backup data on a public site... it would remain safe. It uses 448b encryption. The worlds banking system relies on 128b encryption.

Even worse... banking sites know your password (they need to so they can give you access to your accounts... and they also need access to your account). By contrast... the online backup companies have no access to your data. Hence... it is encrypted on your machine... and the company only ever gets encrypted data.

Furthermore... if you are still paranoid about the data... you back up with a friend using each other's computers.

I do not deny that there are people who remain skeptical. This is similar to people who kept money under their mattress because they didn't trust banks.

The bottom line... these online backup companies are by far the safest way to backup data.

/Jim

How many servers have been compromised over the last few years, Sony etc. They all claim "your details are safe with us" - that is until there's a breach then it's red faces all round. Even without a breach what if the company goes bust. The servers which that particular company uses may then not release peoples data due to all sorts of legal issues surrounding ownership. The only person I trust with my data is "ME". I keep one set of data on my NAS and the other offsite by physical transfer. That has to be safer than trusting to a third party.

 

[zhenya]

How many servers have been compromised over the last few years, Sony etc. They all claim "your details are safe with us" - that is until there's a breach then it's red faces all round. Even without a breach what if the company goes bust. The servers which that particular company uses may then not release peoples data due to all sorts of legal issues surrounding ownership. The only person I trust with my data is "ME". I keep one set of data on my NAS and the other offsite by physical transfer. That has to be safer than trusting to a third party.

If you and only you hold the key, the only thing residing on their servers are blocks of 448-bit encrypted data. Nobody can do anything with that data.

Your home network is no safer, and in all honesty, probably less safe than being stored encrypted in the cloud. Do you have wifi access? What do you use? WPA? Do you have ports open for forwarding in your router? Do you have a laptop that you travel with and use on unknown hotspots? All major vulnerabilities.

Again, this is BACKUP data so who cares if the company goes bust and can't give you your data back? It's just a copy. I consider ALL data everywhere just a copy as there should always be redundant storage of important data.

 

[jraske]

Try Backblaze . . . a native OS X client

I recommend using Backblaze . . . in addition to the a great price and customer service, it relies upon a native OS X client. I would never use Crashplan because it utilizes a Java client. In my opinion, Java should be avoided if you care about the security of your Mac.

 

[RobJC]

Great Service

Long time reader... First post

I think many of the brand name services do not live up to expectations..

You guys should really check this service out:

https://www.zoolz.com/default

The business console and it's functionality is absolutely gorgeous. Waiting on the mac client

 

[Apple fanboy]

I have the time capsule for bootable restore if the machine goes down.

I didn't think Time capsule is a bootable back up? I'm new to Mac's and was planning on using my TC for on site data back up and a separate portable drive for critical stuff and as a bootable drive stored offsite. Is this the correct way?

 

[petraidm]

Something Important to Consider

An important issue missed in this thread is the limits of your network upload speed. I have tried online back-up services only to abandon them due to upload speed limits and the time it takes to create an initial back up and to a lesser extent the time to restore from the cloud.

Personally, family photos and movies (the most valuable thing I want back-ups for) take up the majority of my disk space and I am on Cable network. If I wanted to back up 500 GB of photos and movies to a cloud server it would take approximately 30 days to upload and 3 days to restore. Given this, it is not practical more me to use an online service.

 

[zhenya]

An important issue missed in this thread is the limits of your network upload speed. I have tried online back-up services only to abandon them due to upload speed limits and the time it takes to create an initial back up and to a lesser extent the time to restore from the cloud.

Personally, family photos and movies (the most valuable thing I want back-ups for) take up the majority of my disk space and I am on Cable network. If I wanted to back up 500 GB of photos and movies to a cloud server it would take approximately 30 days to upload and 3 days to restore. Given this, it is not practical more me to use an online service.

Why not?

So what if it takes 30 days to seed if it works unobtrusively in the background? After that, data like photos and video rarely change, so the daily backups will take little time.

While I agree that Cloud backup is not suitable for immediate restoration of mission critical systems, family photos and videos hardly qualify. In the rare event that you need to restore your entire 500GB at once, and can't do it from local backups, say due to flood or fire, the several days it takes to restore will be insignificant compared to the other issues you are dealing with. Who cares if it takes days to restore your digital life so long as its there, intact?

(1 TB of pictures, movies and music backed up to the cloud here)

 

[petraidm]

Why not?

That's fine for you. For me it's because I do not want my network tied up and slowed for 30-60 days while the files are backing up. It will slow your network down while backing up or files and if you pause the upload it takes even longer.

Unfortunately my network is used for work related activities such as LiveMeeting and VOIP and the last time I attempted using an online back-up service, I was averaging only 1 GB a day upload. Therefore, NOT practical. My files are safe and secure on multiple external drives.

 

[zhenya]

That's fine for you. For me it's because I do not want my network tied up and slowed for 30-60 days while the files are backing up. It will slow your network down while backing up or files and if you pause the upload it takes even longer.

Unfortunately my network is used for work related activities such as LiveMeeting and VOIP and the last time I attempted using an online back-up service, I was averaging only 1 GB a day upload. Therefore, NOT practical. My files are safe and secure on multiple external drives.

Well that's a very different reason altogether. Still, with any decent service you can throttle the bandwidth allotted to the backup. Sure it will take longer still, but again, what's a month or two of seed time in the long-run? Since switching half of my backup routine to the cloud, my backups for the entire house have become 100% hands off except for when we add a new computer or I upgrade the Time Machine disk every few years.

 

[Weaselboy]

I recommend using Backblaze . . . in addition to the a great price and customer service, it relies upon a native OS X client. I would never use Crashplan because it utilizes a Java client. In my opinion, Java should be avoided if you care about the security of your Mac.

The Mac Java exploits we keep seeing are related to Java in the browser and not Java apps like the Crashplan app.

----------

I didn't think Time capsule is a bootable back up? I'm new to Mac's and was planning on using my TC for on site data back up and a separate portable drive for critical stuff and as a bootable drive stored offsite. Is this the correct way?

Since 10.7.2, local Time Machine backup disks are bootable. Just option key boot and select the Time Machine disk as the boot source.

If you want to keep a second disk for offsite backup, you can use Time Machine for that also. It can manage two, separate backup disks. Just swap them out when you want and Time Machine will know what to do.

 

[Lankyman]

Again, this is BACKUP data so who cares if the company goes bust and can't give you your data back? It's just a copy. I consider ALL data everywhere just a copy as there should always be redundant storage of important data.

It may be backup data but given the sensitivity of some of my data I would hate for it to get into the wrong hands. If the company goes bust then I want it back . The last thing I want is this material residing on some server somewhere that I cannot retrieve. Who knows where it could end up. When I transfer my data off site I move it myself physically, i.e. on a memory stick to a secure secondary location. Me I trust, other people whom I do not know - I don't think so.

 

[LogicRumours]

see dollydrive http://www.backupcomparisons.com/dolly-drive/

Time Machine in the Cloud

 

[Johnlockeislost]

I have seen a lot of recommendations for Crashplan here. I've done some of my own research and have found Arq.

Crashplan vs. Arq
Any comments or thoughts? Please only from people who have taken a serious look at both.

Thank you

 

[zhenya]

I have seen a lot of recommendations for Crashplan here. I've done some of my own research and have found Arq.

Crashplan vs. Arq
Any comments or thoughts? Please only from people who have taken a serious look at both.

Thank you

My questions with Arq would be:

- How good is the de-duplication? Can I drastically re-arrange my folder structure without it duplicating my backup data?

- Does it back up changes at the block level or at the file level? File level changes mean larger backup sizes, longer backup times; potentially much more in both cases if you are backing up large files.

Both of these are vitally important because you are storing your backups on Amazon's servers, where you pay for the storage. Current rates for S3 are 9.5cents/GB/month for the first TB. That's expensive - that's $9.50/month for 100GB of storage, and it's only going to grow over time. Not only does your normal volume of data grow over time, but if you want to keep versions of files, your backup sizes grow. Depending on how the software handles the questions I asked above can greatly increase your storage costs. Arq also has a $29/device charge.

Crashplan, in comparison, charges only $5/month for unlimited storage for one computer. If you pay in advance, or buy the family plan, it gets much much cheaper per device (as cheap as $6/month for unlimited storage for up to 10 computers). Not having to worry about how much space you use is a huge relief (I used Amazon's servers for a couple of years). I believe Crashplan's deduplication and block level change monitoring is so good because on their plans, extra data is a cost to THEM as opposed to services like Arq, it is a cost to YOU. They have a real incentive to optimize their software and Arq doesn't.

Really, you have to try out these services to make a good choice. Don't pay for a years subscription until you have thoroughly tested it. Restore data. Change file structures, see how it handles changes to large files and your iPhoto library. Restore data not only from your computer but through the web interface and phone apps. Try everything.

 

[Fishrrman]

"I have nothing against bootable clones... they are fantastic at what they do... but they should not be considered backup. They do not have "usable history"... which is one of the most important aspects of a backup strategy."

For the overwhelming majority of users, your advice may be useless during a "moment of extreme need".

I don't need a "usable history" for 100% of the documents I keep backed up (such as financial information, billing info, personal records, audio projects). All I need is an "openable copy" of each respective file "as it was" when I last used it.

I sense that somewhere from 90-95% of "personal computing end users" need nothing more than that, either.

The majority of postings requesting help I see here on MacRumors are:
- Person can't get computer to boot up
- Person has had a problem with computer, tried to "restore" the system, and finds he/she can't access their Time Machine backup

In both of the above cases, if the person had available a "cloned backup" of their main (startup) volume, they would be fully up-and-running in the time it takes to do a "switch boot" via the startup manager.

Once running, they can then go to work on the internal hard drive, etc.

Even if the internal drive has become so corrupted that a re-initialization and restoration is required, it's easy to do so while booted from the cloned backup -- just boot, re-initialize, and re-clone back to the internal volume.

Yes, they will lose whatever file changes had been made since the last incremental (cloned) backup. It's a small price to pay for being up and running in a few minutes. I suppose if one is that worried about work lost since the last cloned backup they can keep a TM backup as well.

NOTHING gets you back up and running as quickly or easily as a cloned, bootable backup in a "moment of extreme need". Have been there myself.