This site is currently undergoing an update. If you spot any problems on this page, please let me know.
My online backup service, rsync.net, has just dropped their prices. They’re now $1.20 per GB per month, unlimited bandwidth. Pretty reasonable I reckon. Plus they’ve added a couple of Windows clients to make things easier for poor souls not yet enlightened to the power of Linux. :-p
Callum at 2009-12-10 16:42:19
I'm suspicious of a business model that charges for "unlimited storage". Is there a fair use policy, bandwidth limit, or other "catch"? If I write a script to upload my monthly bandwidth allowance of random data from a server will you cut me off at some point? 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.
Nathan Jones at 2008-10-29 14:35:32
Minor correction: they charge per GB, not GiB. Still very good, though, and a lovely surprise to wake up to yesterday.
Callum at 2008-10-29 14:43:48
@<a href="http://www.callum-macdonald.com/2008/10/28/rsyncnet-gets-cheaper/#comment-31349" rel="nofollow">Nathan Jones</a>: Good point, it is indeed GB. I've updated my post. Thanks.
Mathijs at 2008-11-02 21:13:12
Callum, Just have to say this: rsync.net ROCKS!
John at 2009-12-10 18:43:49
Just wanted to add that pricing has changed recently. The monthly 2.99 is now considered a basic package for 100 GB's of data. Additional storage is billed in increments of 50 GB's per month. Currently there is no bandwidth limit. 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.
Amos at 2009-02-02 23:18:20
I'm rsync to Amazon S3 through <a href="http://s3rsync.com/" rel="nofollow">s3rsync.com</a>. it's muck more cheaper then rsync.net.
Amos at 2009-02-03 01:56:22
I tried to restore using rsync with no problem. Actually my data is store on my own S3 bucket in tar format. So there is no need to use s3rsync.com rsync service to restore. I can just download the tar file directly from Amazon. Abut the price issue rsync.net double the price when you order Geo-Redundant location. On Amazon S3 all your data is Geo-Redundant for $0.15 Per Gb.
Callum at 2009-02-03 02:08:23
@<a href="http://www.callum-macdonald.com/2008/10/28/rsyncnet-gets-cheaper/#comment-33294" rel="nofollow">Amos</a>: Ok, interesting, so the data is stored in tar format. That would explain how permissions are stored, etc. Sounds interesting. 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.
Callum at 2009-02-03 01:30:40
@<a href="http://www.callum-macdonald.com/2008/10/28/rsyncnet-gets-cheaper/comment-page-1/#comment-33287" rel="nofollow">Amos</a>: s3rsync is an interesting service. It was an idea that occurred to me when Amazon launched their EC2 service. However, it's not quite the same as an rsync.net filesystem. 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 <a href="http://www.rsync.net/resources/faq.html#7b" title="Run commands on rsync.net filesystems" rel="nofollow">commands</a> 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.
Callum at 2009-12-11 15:03:57
How much are the additional 50GB increments? 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.
John at 2009-12-07 13:14:20
Feel free to give my service a try. Offers RSYNC, SFTP, and SCP access with unlimited storage for only 2.99 a month. I don't think you can find this anywhere for less. Visit the GetStarted page to sign up for a free month to see how you like it. www.datastorageunit.com John