In the 3 days since your first post the business model has changed to effectively increase the price of the service. Rsync.net have only ever lowered the prices since I’ve been a customer.

I also agree about keeping multiple copies, I’d only consider offsite backup as exactly that, a backup.

Honestly, my concern with your service is not price but credibility. I’d be making a significant time investment to setup your service and push data to it. Right now, between your web site and the changes in policy, I don’t have much confidence in your business.

I can totally see one’s point when it comes to sticking by a service that is reputable. Rsync.Net does appear to be very reputable. That type of trust has to be earned over time I believe…and they’ve been around longer than us.

About trusting your data with any company. I’m a big advocate of never putting all your eggs in one basket. I don’t ever recommend anyone store all their data in one place…even if it’s with my own service. I think a more ideal solution is to have a secondary copy there at home, as well as your offsite copy. That way if you lose both drives at home…there’s a fire, or whatever it may be…you have the offsite copy. Looking from the other perspective…if your offsite data vanishes…you have your local backup as well.

I might consider your service for “less critical” media data like photographs and so on, but it’ll take a hell of a lot of convincing to get me to switch my core data from the good folks at rsync.net.

http://www.datastorageunit.com

John

As I said, I’m happy with rsync.net. I might construct my own EC2 / S3 system for backing up media, but I probably don’t need the EC2 component.

With s3rsync your files end up on S3. S3 is not really a filesystem, its’ a bucket storage service. So I’m not sure how s3rsync preserve file permissions, symbolic links, etc, but I’m assuming it’s by storing metadata within the s3 bucket or in another bucket. That data will not be as easy to restore as a genuine filesystem like on rsync.net.

With rsync.net I can run a range of commands on my rsync.net filesystem. I don’t believe that is possible with s3rsync. rsync.net also supports subversion so I can host svn repositories on my filesystem.

rsync.net also has pretty good support. I’ve had some issues with support in the past, but I’ve never had a frustratingly stupid response from them, which is well worth paying for in itself.

I realise that there’s a cost difference between S3 / s3rsync and rsync.net. I’m happy to pay a little more for better support and a genuine filesystem. I backup my core data (<6Gb) onto rsync.net. I may well backup my media onto s3, but probably directly rather than via s3rsync.

Just have to say this: rsync.net ROCKS!