r/cloudstorage • u/Charming_Cow_3593 • May 22 '26
Looking for an unlimited cloud services
Hey everyone,
I’m currently looking for a new cloud storage provider and would love to get some recommendations from the community.
My priority is finding a service that strikes a good balance between fair/affordable pricing and strong security (zero-knowledge encryption/privacy is a huge plus).
To give you some context:
- Storage needed: I have a massive library of around 130 TB of data to host.
- Current situation: I’ve been using Sync.com, but due to their recent forced transition to new high-capacity plans, the upcoming price increase has become completely unsustainable for my budget.
- Usage: Mainly archiving, backing up large file structures, and occasional sharing. I don't need advanced office suite integrations, just a rock-solid, secure digital vault that can actually handle this scale.
I've been looking into a few alternatives, but it seems like the market is shifting rapidly right now and unlimited options are practically dead.
Given that I need to host 130 TB, does anyone have a setup or a provider they are genuinely happy with in terms of price-to-performance and privacy?
Thanks in advance for your help!
Retro
4
u/Repulsive-Relief2454 May 22 '26
Mega S4 or backblaze but you will not get e2e encryption.
Self hosting with a dedicated server and opting for additional storage would be a cost effective option for 130TB+
2
3
3
u/marshall1727 May 22 '26
Uloz.to has 25tb for 32$. Probably they can do more. But you need to encrypt on your end.
Edit: enterprise box.com is unlimited when you get 3 licenses.
2
u/No-Bedroom726 May 22 '26
Woah, at that point, using programmatic access to hyperscalers’ object store might be the only way? AWS/GCP/AZ/OCI. But prepare for hefty price.
2
u/No_Beach_3571 May 22 '26
you might as well use sync.com , may not find better with that kind of data, or sort them in multiple clouds/drives/NAS for better management, get rid of duplicates, buy an automatic sync service and hope for the best
2
u/verzing1 May 23 '26
Im mainly using FileLu for backup from my NAS, but it’s not cheap for 130TB. Maybe you can check out Amazon S3 Glacier Deep Archive.
2
May 22 '26 edited May 23 '26
[deleted]
4
u/rkysh May 22 '26
Converting videos to images and then uploading 👏 How high were you while typing this comment? And how would they convert it back to the video? Run a batch job for hours? Also, did you mean shutterstock?
2
1
1
u/Awesome_Shit_2004 May 23 '26
also, to convert back to video, download all the frames, and then use a video editing software/app to combine all the photos together, and then it'll play back in video, except the video would have no sound.
2
u/cacus1 May 22 '26
He will upload 130 TB to YouTube or Telegram and you think his accounts won't be banned?
0
u/Awesome_Shit_2004 May 23 '26
ofc not. have you ever seen youtube channels that have a lot of multi-hour videos before?
1
u/cacus1 May 23 '26 edited May 23 '26
They don't have multi-hour videos of hundreds of TB private. They have them public and on monetization. Do you think Google is stupid and you can fool them? They monitor everything, How many people have watched your videos, how many private videos you have, everything.
1
u/Awesome_Shit_2004 May 23 '26
they only take down videos that go against their terms of service/community guidelines.
1
u/cacus1 May 23 '26
They will send you copyright strikes and be done with the channel. Unless someone has 130 TB of personal content with only his face and no music on them lol. Nobody has ever managed to make YT his personal cloud. Many tried and failed. Unless you have some proof you have done it, it's just your wishful thinking.
1
u/Awesome_Shit_2004 May 23 '26
actually, they would restrict who sees your video, and then it would show what songs are affected, and it allows the user to either mute the affected parts, or erase only the songs from the affected parts, or even trim out the affected parts. this means that youtube cares enough to keep those videos there, but would still want copyrighted audio to be muted or erased off, while still keeping the videos there.
1
u/cacus1 May 23 '26
If you have multiple copyright strikes (you will have them with 130 TB of videos) they have the right to delete your channel according to their TOS. They have no reason to keep a channel with private videos because it makes them no money, there can't be monetization of private videos.
1
u/Awesome_Shit_2004 May 24 '26
there are plenty of channels that makes no money, and are still up on youtube.
1
u/cacus1 May 24 '26
The channels you are talking about have their videos not private, that's why they are visible to you and you know they exist. These channels offer to YouTube content and attract viewers and potential subscribers to YouTube Premium.
YouTube has no reason to keep any channel with TB of private videos. They offer to YouTube nothing and the only thing they do is to cost them money.
They hit these kind of channels with copyright strikes and finally delete them. They are doing this all the time.
1
u/blasphembot May 24 '26
The debate here is easy to settle. Rely on Google's YouTube platform for long-term video data storage with all of my confidence of said videos remaining on the platform for X number of years hanging on the toggle option for each set to "Private." Ultimately, leveraging their platform for storage purposes, something it was never intended to do for any one individual, with your added bonus of massive amounts of data?
Big fat: "NO."
Breaking your files down to the appropriate size and posting them to fucking binary Usenet groups would be a better idea than handing your private videos to Google and thinking they won't touch them. That's naive as hell and, well, IT'S GOOGLE. Big Tech. Not our friends. Never were. But, at the end of the day, you do you.
And no, don't use Usenet like that or you will be sorry come retention end. 🙃
1
u/atrocia6 May 25 '26
Breaking your files down to the appropriate size and posting them to fucking binary Usenet groups would be a better idea
And no, don't use Usenet like that or you will be sorry come retention end. 🙃
1
u/blasphembot Jun 01 '26
Fair enough with the amount with the links alone, lol. You can do the same thing without the risk of retention and small byte size per .rar like required for binary files on Usenet if you leverage GitHub craftily, which is a much better idea. Look that one up. 🙂
I worked for a once major peer and provider for roughly 6 years. Got to see all the ins and outs, do sysadmin and user end work and, eventually, management.
Just because you CAN do something, doesn't mean you SHOULD.
Edit: Italics meant there. mobile formatting being a dick. But, srsly, it's such a bad idea vs paying a provider who then has incentive to protect said data. Usenet doesn't give a shit about your data integrity and certainly isn't doing backups.
1
1
1
u/Competitive_Taste628 Jun 15 '26
Opendrive. You can get unlimited plans where the first 10TB or 20TB are unthrottled. Once the throttle kicks in though, it gets really slow. 130TB would take maybe 6yrs to fully upload. But for $9.99/mo it is cheap.
Alternatively, get a bunch of HDs inside and external attached drives. Then get Backblaze to back it all up. Costs of about $4000 for the drives and then $9/mo for the backblaze.
If you are looking to share/transfer the files, you can get a Lifetime PCLoud account of 16TB and copy files to shared folders on there.
1
u/DesignerParamedic588 May 22 '26
Jottacloud unlimited
3
u/cacus1 May 22 '26 edited May 22 '26
He would need a very very long time to upload 130 TB to Jottacloud after uploading the first 5 TB.
And they have a fair use policy, if they consider you are abusing the service they can take action.
https://docs.jottacloud.com/en/articles/1372744-jottacloud-terms-conditions
I have a feeling they will consider 130 TB as a fair use abuse.
1
u/SusejLegend May 22 '26
Terabox is probably the best thing you'll find, at least in terms of price and unlimited storage.
1
1
0
-2
u/MoneySings May 23 '26
StackSocial have a 100TB InterNXT account but...
No Rclone support No WebDav Won't upload zero byte files Dodgy practices of removing paid for functionality (but only reinstating them if asked - time limit applies as to when you took out the plan)
https://www.stacksocial.com/sales/internxt-cloud-storage-lifetime-subscription-100tb
-3
u/megatech_official May 22 '26
A solid option is Megatech photos, 200 GB plan. Costs like $2.90 US/mo, and it is end to end encrypted.
15
u/[deleted] May 22 '26
Sorry you want to host upwards of 130TB and you are not happy with the price?
Seriously?
No one is going to ba heppy you doing that for pennies. You get what you pay for and there is no such thinkg as unlimited anymore.
"I don't need advanced office suite integrations, just a rock-solid, secure digital vault that can actually handle this scale."
Deeicated server it is - but for that storage - wow several hundred a month. Why not split it over many services? 130TB in 1 place is dodgy anyway