đŸ Backblaze, You Had One Job
Turns out Backblaze no longer backs up cloud filesânot even cloud files that are already downloaded and stored locally on your computer. Worse, they quietly shipped this change in a minor point update and hoped no one would notice:
Release Version 9.2.2.877
[...]
- The Backup Client now excludes popular cloud storage providers from backup, including both mount points and cache directories. This prevents performance issues, excessive data usage, and unintended uploads from services like OneDrive, Google Drive, Dropbox, Box, iDrive, and others. This change aligns with Backblazeâs policy to back up only local and directly connected storage.
That "others" includes iCloud Drive, which is where I happen to keep most of my stuff. My important stuff. The stuff I trusted Backblaze to back up.
Backblaze also has a new banner on their old instructions that explain how to back up cloud files before this change, like the one on their instructions for iCloud Drive:
NOTE:
iCloud's most recent update prevents Backblaze from backing up files that iCloud synced.
To back up these files, download them to another local location where Backblaze can read them.
First, that's a baldfaced lie. There's no iCloud update that prevents Backblaze from backing up iCloud files. There's similar wording on their page for Google Drive:
Google Drive's most recent update prevents Backblaze from backing up files that Google Drive synced.
And their page for OneDrive:
OneDrive's most recent update prevents Backblaze from backing up files that OneDrive synced.
Bullshit. Apple, Google, and Microsoft didn't release updates at the same time across multiple operating systems that stopped Backblaze from backing up their cloud files. Backblaze made the choice to not back these files up. Backblaze made the choice to not tell their users about it outside the third bullet point in a minor point release. Backblaze made the choice to put these banners on their support articles and knew they were lying through their teeth by doing so. Other backup software has the ability to back up iCloud Drive and other cloud files just fine; there's nothing preventing Backblaze from doing the same.
Second, the content of the original instructions remains below these warnings, but none of it applies anymore. It would be easy for someone to skip over one of these warnings, read the instructions below, and think their cloud files are backed up when they're not. That's shameful and irresponsible.
When I learned about all this I checked Backblaze's file restore tool and confirmed all of my iCloud Drive files were no longer available to restore even though I explicitly configured iCloud Drive on my Mac to keep a full local copy of every file.
It's really important to have my iCloud Drive files backed up because sync is not a backup, as Backblaze's own blog explains:
While cloud sync is great for giving you 24/7 access to your files and enabling collaboration, it is not a trustworthy backup solution. Hereâs why:
- Tiered pricing discourages usage: Typically, these services have tiered pricing, meaning you pay for the amount of data you store with the service, or for tiers of data that you are allowed to use. Odds are, if you are using the free tier of a syncing service, you have a lot of data on your computer thatâs not syncing because youâre trying to manage your usage to avoid paying more.
- Data outside the service is vulnerable: Only the files, folders, or directories you put into the sync service are synced. The rest of the data on the computer is not.
- Data within the service can be deleted and lost forever: If there is data loss (letâs say you share a file with someone and they simply delete it), it may be lost forever. Sometimes these services have a version history feature, meaning youâre able to recover an earlier version of your work (before your friend or coworker deleted it).
- Data in sync services is vulnerable to ransomware and malware: If your computer is attacked by a bad actor and your sync service automatically synchronizes after the attack, your synced files are also corrupted. With a backup solution (discussed below) with longer version history, you can simply roll back to an earlier backup before the attack occurred.
We often hear people say, âI donât need backup. I use Dropbox.â But, thatâs an assumption to leave in the past. Where sync services ensure that a certain set of data is the same across multiple devices, backup ensures that all or most of the data on one device is backed up elsewhere.
It's a huge problem when the backup service you trust to back up your files stops backing up your files. It's an even bigger problem when they make that change as quietly as possible, without letting you know, and lie about the reason why.
These changesâboth the decision making process that led to it and the way it was implementedâhave completely shattered my trust in Backblaze. Beyond their computer backup, we also used their B2 storage service to backup our NAS, but now I wouldn't trust them or any of their products or services with a single byte of my data or anyone else's.
I just finished removing Backblaze from all of our devices and deleting our Backblaze accounts. If you use Backblaze I strongly recommend you seek an alternative.
Our new backup solution
Our household has the following devices that need to be backed up:
- Two iPhones
- Two iPads
- Five Macs
- A Synology NAS
The iPhones and iPads use the only practical backup solution for iOS and iPadOS devices: iCloud Backup.
Our five Macs back themselves up to our Synology NAS using Time Machine for local backups. After some extensive research, I decided on Arq backup software for our Macs and rsync.net for offsite backups.
Note that this approach isn't as easy to set up or maintain as Backblaze. If you're looking for a more-or-less drop in Backblaze replacement, I recommend you give the Arq Premium trial a try. I'm not affiliated with them in any way, but I used the trial quite a bit during my research and found it to be a solid option when I tested it.
Arq is available in two flavors. You can pay once for the backup software itself and use it with the cloud provider/server of your choice (including a a five-computer family pack license), or you can choose Arq Premium: a subscription service that includes the Arq software and Arq's own cloud backup storage bundled together (at time of writing Arq uses Google Cloud Storage behind the scenes and offers 1TB of storage for up to five computers).
Arq Premium was tempting, but ultimately I wanted a unified and more flexible offsite backup destination than Arq Premium or S3-compatible storage providers could offer (shout out to S3compare.io as a very useful tool during my research, though!). If I went with Arq Premium I wouldn't be able to backup our Synology to it, and would have had to find a separate offsite storage provider for it. That's more complexity and accounts than I want to juggle.
Regarding cloud files (the ones Backblaze says they can't back up), Arq backs them up just fine. On a Mac, cloud files that haven't been downloaded to your computer show up with a cloud icon next to them in the Finder. If you try to open or access a cloud file, the OS automatically downloads the file and, when the download is complete, the cloud icon is removed and the file opens normally.
Arq lets you decide how cloud files should be handled on each computer with a, 'When a dataless ("cloud-only") file is encountered,' setting that has three options:
- Report an error
- Ignore
- Materialize
The first two are self-explanatory. The third, "materialize," tells Arq to trigger a download of any cloud file it comes across so it can then back it up.
I, personally, have two Macs signed in to my iCloud account:
- A MacBook Air that lives on my desk and is always plugged in
- A MacBook Neo which roams around with me and is often asleep or offline
I keep a local copy of everything in iCloud Drive on my MacBook Air by keeping the "Optimize Mac Storage" setting in iCloud Drive's settings turned off. I also keep my entire photo library stored locally by setting the "Download Originals to this Mac" option enabled in Photos. Finally, Arq's "cloud-only" setting is set to "materialize" on my MacBook Air to make sure all of my cloud files are present and available for offsite backups.
On my MacBook Neo I have the opposite setup. That Mac has a smaller internal drive and is often offline, so I have iCloud Drive and Photos set to optimize my Neo's storage, which means things will only be downloaded locally when I need them. Likewise, in Arq, I have the "cloud-only" setting set to "ignore" because I know those cloud files are being backed up via my MacBook Air, so I don't need to worry about them on my Neo.
Beyond Macs, our Synology used to back up to Backblaze B2, but it now uses Hyper Backup to back up to our rsync.net server. One annoying thing about Hyper Backup when using it with an rsync server is that it doesn't support SSH key authentication. I was hoping to turn password authentication off on our rsync.net server for security reasons, but until Hyper Backup gets its act together I'm forced to leave it on (with an absurdly long password).
I chose rsync.net because they have an experts-only plan that works well for our needs. In exchange for cheaper storage, they provide a fully-functional rsync.net server with the following caveats:
- No setup or configuration support (normally the rsync.net folks will help you set up and configure backups on your end, but for the experts-only plan they'll only help with the rsync.net side of things)
- No free ZFS snapshots (you can still configured your own ZFS snapshots, but they count against your storage quota)
- No sub-accounts (you only get a single user account on the server)
- You're required to pay annually
That's all fine by me, but anyone who isn't technically inclined will probably consider some or all of that a dealbreaker.
One other important consideration when choosing our cloud backup provider was the physical location of the data. There were a few options that looked promising until I realized the only practical server location was in Seattle. We live in Portland, and if the big one hits I want our data to be a good distance away from the Pacific Northwest. rsync.net's Denver location is an excellent balance between geographical distance/safety and latency.
Another important thing to note about backup solutions in general is how they handle backup history and retention. For example, if a file accidentally gets deleted today, but you don't notice it's missing until three months from now, you want the ability to go back to a backup from three months ago and retrieve the file. That's one of the big reasons sync is not a backup; changes and deletions are synced immediately. Some cloud sync providers offer version history, but it's usually limited or restricted (e.g., only 30 days, costs extra, etc.).
With a normal rsync.net account, the idea is that you get the files you want backed up onto your rsync.net server and backup history is handled by ZFS snapshots. However, with an experts-only account you don't get free ZFS snapshots, which means you either need to configure ZFS snapshots yourself or make sure historical backups and retention are handled in another way.
I chose the latter approach. Both Arq on the Macs and Hyper Backup on our Synology can be configured to keep historical backups and prune old versions as they age. This provides fine-grained client-side control instead of a one-size-fits-all solution on the server, which works best for us. We can, for example, keep more granular history for our Macs but less granular history for our Synology. Thus, I have not configured ZFS snapshots on our rsync.net server and don't plan to in the future.
That backup history distinction is important to keep in mind if you get an experts-only rsync.net account, because most of the tutorials and guides for rsync.net assume you have snapshots enabled. For example, rsync.net provides instructions for backing up Synology devices using Hyper Backup, and tell you to use the "rsync copy (single-version)" option, assuming the ZFS snapshots will handle historical backup needs. Without snapshots you should choose the option that keeps multiple versions and configure retention for those versions in Hyper Backup.
I would also be remiss if I didn't mention encryption, especially for offsite backups stored on infrastructure you don't own. Arq and Hyper Backup allow you encrypt your data before it leaves your device, so all of the data on rsync.net's server is fully encrypted and we're the only ones with the keys. We also have our Macs encrypted with FileVault, and our Time Machine backups to the Synology are encrypted as well. Your specific encryption needs may vary, but encrypting your data when possible is generally recommended.
One last thing: keep the 3-2-1 rule in mind:
The idea that a minimal backup solution should involve three copies of the data (one primary copy and two backup copies), where two different media types are involved in storing the copies, and one of the copies is stored offsite in a remote location.
Unfortunately, following the 3-2-1 backup rule is inconvenient for iOS and iPadOS devices. You can do it, it just requires you to plug your iPhone or iPad into a computer and make a local backup which, combined with iCloud Backup, gives you three copies across two media and one offsite. What you end up doing is up to you and how valuable the data on your iOS and iPadOS devices is, but I really wish Apple had a local Time Machine-like solution for iPhones and iPads that allowed wireless backups to a NAS.
For our Macs we're set: three copies (the Macs themselves, Time Machine, and rsync.net) across two media (SSDs in the Macs and magnetic hard drives in the Synology and, I assume, at rsync.net) with one offsite (rsync.net).
For our Synology, we keep less vital data on it, so we only have the one local copy and the copy on rsync.net. That's an intentional choice based on a considered risk analysis.
That's the important thing to keep in mind: the 3-2-1 rule is called a rule, but it's more of a guideline. More than three is better, for example. Sometimes less than three is okay. The real rule is to use the 3-2-1 approach as a starting point and make thoughtful choices about your own situation and your data security needs. Mostly this boils down to asking yourself questions about what data would be lost forever in different scenarios:
- If one of your devices were stolen, lost, or destroyed
- If all of your devices were stolen, lost, or destroyed
- If a major natural disaster struck the region where you live
- If a ransomware attack encrypted your data and held it hostage
Having a good backup strategy means having good answers to those questions that you're comfortable with. The answers and comfort levels are different for everyone, and that's fine. The important part is giving this some thought and putting together an intentional plan to keep your data safe.
In other words, do the opposite of what Backblaze chose to do.
đȘ Worth on the Web
Manuel Moreale in a post titled "Ad Blockers didnât help kill the open web":
I agree that the web platform failed at figuring out a way to deal with monetisation. Everything ultimately falls back on Ads because itâs the only idea that âworksâ. But to me, the issue is that we have an overabundance of content, and most content is not worth paying for. Most content is not worth anything.
This post is worth nothing. Before the web, nobody was going to pay anything to read something like this. At best, I could write it and send it to a newspaper as an opinion piece, and maybe theyâd be interested in publishing it. But for some reason, the web has morphed our perception of content to the point where everything needs to generate money because everything is considered valuable.
Sorry, I can't just read, "This post is worth nothing," in a blog post and not refute it.
Yes, the web has morphed our perception, but I disagree that, "everything needs to generate money because everything is considered valuable." The web hasn't made everyone consider everything valuable, it's pushed people to monetize. The pressure isn't to create valuable content, it's to create content that sells. Many things that sell have little or no value. Many things with immense value are things you can't put a price tag on (although some people will try).
Manuel's post has value. I value reading other people's viewpoints. I value people taking the time to articulate and share their thoughts. I value the exchange of ideas and the opportunity to learn something new. And I am not alone.
Yes, most people won't pay for a blog post like the one Manuel wrote, but I'll bet there are a handful of people who would (the main problems there are awareness and payment infrastructure, but those are rabbit holes for another day). People not paying doesn't mean something is worthless. In fact, what makes many blog posts worthwhile is the fact that they're free in almost every sense of the word: free to read, free to share, and (practically) free to write. Manuel acknowledges the near-zero cost to run a blog, but, again, that doesn't make the posts on a given blog worthless.
In the same post, Manuel opens with this:
In the spirit of the open web, Iâm writing this post to disagree with something someone else has posted on their own site. Specifically, a post titled âAd Blockers helped kill the open webâ by Christian Heilmann.
Even now, 37 years after it was created, I'm still in awe of the power of the web. Christian wrote a thing and shared it with the world. Manuel read that, wrote about it, and shared it with the world. I read that, wrote this, and now you're reading it. You're thinking about what they wrote and what I'm writing.
Who knows what might happen next? Maybe you'll write your own post. Maybe you'll share this post or one of the posts linked above with someone. Maybe you'll subscribe to one of our feeds. Maybe you'll learn a new word or a new way to use some punctuation. Maybe you'll view source and learn something new about CSS. Maybe you'll start your own blog.
The possibilities, both in number and in potential value, are endless. The connections between everyone involved are precious. Our ability to learn from each other without ever meeting is sublime. The fact that I have access, via the web, to Manuel and Christian and the thousands of others who's words I've read, voices I've heard, and videos I've watched is a gift so astonishing and profound I don't know that words alone can convey how powerful it is or how deeply I feel about it.
But I do have the words to articulate one important thing very clearly:
Manuel, your post is worth something. A whole lot, in fact. Thank you for writing it and sharing it.