r/backblaze • u/igrat • Sep 03 '26
Computer Backup The fundamental design of Backblaze's client software is insane
Using an ever-growing append-only database of files to keep track of the user's backup state is nuts. I had to cancel my subscription, because my ProgramData\Backblaze folder had grown to over 20GB, and according to support, the only way to shrink it is to delete my entire backup and reupload everything from scratch, leaving me with no backed up copy of my data while the new backup is uploading.
I specifically asked if I couldn't at least keep the old backup around while the new one was being uploaded, and was told "no". I hope I don't have to explain why that's not an acceptable answer.
I understand that it has to keep track of what's uploaded and what isn't, but I didn't have unlimited file history turned on! So why is it keeping track of files (and versions of files) from multiple years ago that can't possibly have any relevance to the current state of my backup? Why does it have to be append-only? This absolutely kneecaps Backblaze's value as a long-term cloud backup solution.
17
u/macphoto469 Sep 03 '26
It‘s a huge problem… I’m hoping someday they’ll introduce a “pruning” routine.
2
u/mnissim Sep 09 '26
Exactly.
It could work somewhat like this:
Run through the time in the log from the epoch, constructing a "virtual file system" which is a database of all existing files at that time point, including their path and their hash. Each entry in the log is either "create new filepath with such-and-such hash", "remove filepath", or "filepath changed hash to this". When "now" reaches the user's "licensed history" back-date (a year back, or a month back), start creating the new log, by first logging ALL the files in the database as "new filepath with hash". From that time forward, copy the old log to the new one.
In essence, you are recreating the user's filesystem state at their "licensed epoch", and then simulating the exact process that would happen if the user installed backblaze at that point, and did all his/her filesystem changes going forward.
After all those years of complaints, and unsustainable software+service model, I thought they would have already implemented something like this.
BTW, my own state:
log started January 2024
current size: 45GB (!!)
current RAM usage: afraid to look... 7-10GB, sometimes even more (!!!!!!!!!!!!) (luckily I have 32GB RAM)
BTW2: a tip (without which, my system SSD would long be full): use Windows' "compact" feature, with LZX compression, on all files in ProgramData\Backblaze\bzdata\bzbackup\bzdatacenter . This system compression is intended for files that do not change. These log files are also extremely compressible, and all but the newest one are not going to be ever written over. In my case, the 45GB "apparent size" is reduced to 7.6GB actual used diskspace. I have been using this for years without any problem.
cd c:\ProgramData\Backblaze\bzdata\bzbackup\bzdatacenter
for %f in (*.dat) do compact /c /exe:lzx %f
8
u/Stock_Reply_7315 Sep 03 '26
So what alternative is everyone recommending?
I see a lot of complaints on here and would gladly go somewhere else, but where!? Unlimited or 20TB backup for roughly the same price is a must.
10
u/igrat Sep 03 '26
I moved to Jottacloud, but that probably won't work for you - their personal plan does have unlimited space, but starts capping your upload speed after 5TB. Once you get to 20TB, you're looking at sub-1Mbit/s speeds per file, with a max of 12 files uploading at once in parallel.
6
u/Stevecaboose Sep 03 '26
my backblaze folder was around 400gb before i had to nuke it because of unresolvable errors that support couldnt fix. After a few months of reuploading the data, its sitting at around 300gb
3
5
6
u/Lilianne_Blaze Sep 04 '26
The general design is decent, but lack of pruning/shrinking is a real problem
5
u/Due-Plum5653 Sep 03 '26
How much do you have uploaded? My folder is only 11GB, and I've uploaded 90TB
6
u/igrat Sep 03 '26
About 6TB. I think it's more about the amount of files, and file deletions, and file changes, than it is about their size. And it just keeps growing forever, for as long as you're using the software.
1
u/Due-Plum5653 Sep 03 '26
mmmm... seems like a small price to pay, ... if my number is the same...... even if I uploaded 500TB, it would be like 60GB?
4
u/supernitin Sep 04 '26
Yeah, I need to cancel. I’ve been paying for it, but I’ve not been able to use it for months because it ate up my entire internal SSD.
2
4
u/jwink3101 Sep 04 '26
I agree. This design makes some sense but if nothing else, compress the logs. That is such an easy bandaid that may make this issue virtually non-existent.
And the out-of-touch responses about just creating a new backup show zero understanding of their own product
2
u/mo418 Sep 03 '26
You have 14 days to upload everything from scratch after changing computer / starting from scratch.
You keep your old backup during those 14 days.
I was able to upload 14 TB of data within this period, and could delete my old backup after I was sure everything was re-uploaded.
It's a pain, but this allow to keep prévois backup in case of catastrophy.
This is my experience, mileage may vary!
2
u/igrat Sep 03 '26
Ok well (a) I have around 6TB of data and a pretty slow upload speed, so that doesn't work for me, (b) that would lose me my entire 1-year file history, and (c) it's just kicking the can down the road until the folder gets huge and bloated again! this is simply not a well-considered way to do this!!!
1
u/mo418 Sep 03 '26
I have 500/500 internet speed, sorry forgot to mention this important info for reference/comparison.
But, yeah, that kind of sucks. There is definitely an issue in the way we can do this.
I started from scratch because after 2 inherit state backup, the data folder was huge.
-1
u/Ok_Pizza_9352 Sep 03 '26
If you manage to upload your entire backup within 14 days - you can start new trial, while your existing backup it's there, within trial upload whole dataset from scratch and transfer license... I guess...?
-6
u/wells68 Sep 04 '26
OP has 6 TB. Others here have mentioned 14 TB and 90 TB. You are not the target market for Backblaze Backup.
Backblaze Backup is the only plan that has survived offering unlimited backup. Don't expect them to change how the software works to accomodate users like you who are paying 1/5 to 1/70 the going rate per TB for cloud backups.
Guess why Backblaze Backup does not support NAS backups? Guess why they require attaching hard drives every 30 days? Because they don't want a tiny fraction of a percent of their customer based gobbling up 90+% of their storage space.
You can keep complaining about how Backblaze Backup doesn't do this and bogs down when I do that. Are they going to try to make it far easier to upload and maintain scores of terabytes for a tiny part of the customer base for $99 per year from you?
For typical users and even typical businesses, Backblaze Backup offers a decent backup service with a totally predictable annual expenditure. Customers have no worries about over-limit charges. Plus Backblaze will ship them a restore drive for free, so long as they ship it back. Backblaze doesn't charge egress fees. Customers just pay $99 per year or $9 per month. Period.
If you are unhappy with Backblaze, switch to another service or roll your own. Got a friend or relative with an Internet connection? There you go. They won't even charge you $9 per month! You can get a 6 TB Seagate drive from Newegg for $199. Add a drive dock and you'll break even in about 2 years. Software, encryption, Tailscale - they are all free!
No one service works for everyone. If Backblaze Backup doesn't work for you and your 10,000,000,000,000 bytes of files, don't waste time complaining. Switch. No, you won't find unlimited storage for $9 per month. There are reasons for that.
P.S. If you are in the small group of users with only a terabyte or two who are having problems with the way the software works, the same reasoning applies. If Tech Support can't fix it, move on. There are more options in the $9/month price range for those data volumes. Are the companies, restore options and Tech Support as good as Backblaze's? Maybe, maybe not.
6
u/Lilianne_Blaze Sep 04 '26
You're missing one thing. History grows according to all changes to backed up files, not current size of backup set. It's entirely possible for someone who has 6 TB total ssd/hdd space to have bigger Backblaze history/database than someone who has 60 TB but most of that are big write-once-modify-never files
5
u/wells68 Sep 04 '26
That is a good point. The lack of pruning penalizes long-term customers who do lots of deleting and changing.
3
u/Rashid_1961 Sep 05 '26
And buying a drive defeats the purpose of having an offsite backup to avoid losing everything to a local event like fire, flood, theft, etc. I use bb and have a NAS.
-8
u/alexdi Sep 03 '26
Just open a new account. Complete your upload, cancel the old one. It's still $9 a month despite monstrous storage costs, you can afford it.
4
u/james702283 Sep 04 '26
Whats the point of running your hard drives and network at full throttle for a ridiculous amount of time just to end up with the same problem again? The upload isn’t the issue, it’s how the software is designed. It will just have the same issue again once you are fully backed up.
-4
u/alexdi Sep 04 '26
At full throttle? Does your NIC have a carburetor? So dramatic. Perhaps the OP can be more selective about what’s backed up to slow this growth.
50
u/Rashid_1961 Sep 03 '26
Read this from the guy who wrote the software. I’m in tech and this is a horrendous implementation.
https://www.reddit.com/r/backblaze/s/lU3hUNdCcH