Backup4all v.7 supports 37+ online backups (!)

[tomos]

I dont use Backup4all myself but was impressed by their claims for the newest version:

37 (and counting) Amazon S3 Compatible cloud destinations added (PRO only). There are multiple cloud storage providers that use Amazon S3’s infrastructure to store their clients’ data. Backup4all now supports more than 37 Amazon S3 Compatible cloud storage providers so if you have an account with them you can quickly configure it to store backups there. Here is the full list of providers added in Backup4all: Akaza, Aruba Cloud, Caringo, CenturyLink, Cisco, Claudian, Connectia, Constant, DDN, dinCloud, Dream Objects, Dunkel, T Cloud, Exoscale, Google Cloud Storage, Green Qloud, HGST, Hitachi, HostEurope, IDC Frontier, LeoNovus, Mandic, Minio, NetApp, NiftyClouds, Numergy, QNAP, Revera, Scality, Seeweb, SwiftStack, ThinkOn, Tiscali,  vCloud Air, Verizon, Walrus and Zettagrid. You can also use a custom S3 compatible server by entering the specific information.

http://blog.backup4a...backup-destinations/

Also I didnt know that about so many online backups using S3.

Note that Upgrade prices for Backup4all are hidden:
you have to paste in your key

[mwb1100]

Note that Upgrade prices for Backup4all are hidden:
you have to paste in your key

-tomos (October 31, 2017, 01:30 PM)

There's a nondescript "Upgrade Prices" link at the bottom of the Upgrade page that lets you see prices without having to punch in a key.  I'd link directly to the price widget, but it's a Javascript thing that doesn't seem to work on its own.

It looks like the upgrade from any previous version of Backup4All Pro to v7 Pro is $21. But there are different prices depending on exactly what version/variant of B4A you're upgrading from and to.

[Curt]

Note: You cannot use the old key any more after you upgrade to the latest version.

-secure.backup4all

Upgrade price from previous version number has "always" been $21

[Deozaan]

37 Backup Services all using S3 means there's really only 1 backup service: S3.

[tomos]

as said, I was surprised so many sites were using S3.

37 Backup Services all using S3 means there's really only 1 backup service: S3.

-Deozaan (November 01, 2017, 01:36 PM)

if what you imply -- that it's easy -- is the case, hopefully all other backup programmes will be offering this kind of support soon as well.

[wraith808]

37 Backup Services all using S3 means there's really only 1 backup service: S3.

-Deozaan (November 01, 2017, 01:36 PM)

It has others.  There's just a lot of S3 action.  It does google, azure, onedrive, dropbox, and others.  It's just that now they have added the capability to use any service that uses S3 on the backend.

[Deozaan]

I think my comment was misunderstood. It's easy to see why, since it was tangential to this thread. It actually had nothing to do with Backup4all.

I was just trying to point out that the point of backups is redundancy in case of data loss, and 37 backup services all using S3 means there is no redundancy. If S3 goes down, all 37 of those services go down. Again, that has nothing to do with Backup4all. I just think it's kind of scary how this amazing tangled web of computers we call the internet can all come (nearly) crashing down if only one or two of the big, centralized services goes down.

How much of the internet goes through Amazon S3? Or Cloudflare? etc. It's not uncommon to hear in the news about a big service going down and large swathes of the internet being unreachable to large swathes of people across the world.

I'm really looking forward to the decentralized web which, IMO, will be the prevalent paradigm in another 10-15 years, thanks to efforts being made in projects like IPFS (and related projects), various cryptocurrencies (such as Ethereum), mesh networks, etc.

[mwb1100]

I read "S3 compatible" as meaning they use the same protocol, but the providers had their own storage farms.  If they are all delegating their storage to Amazon, then your point about lack of redundancy might be something to consider.

[wraith808]

I read "S3 compatible" as meaning they use the same protocol, but the providers had their own storage farms.  If they are all delegating their storage to Amazon, then your point about lack of redundancy might be something to consider.

-mwb1100 (November 01, 2017, 07:01 PM)

It would be the latter.  However, S3 has built in redundancy that you can control.  There is a personal health dashboard that shows all of your resource groups that you're buying into.  They're all amazon, but for instance, I have buckets replicated in Northern VA and Northern California.

[tomos]

I think my comment was misunderstood.

-Deozaan (November 01, 2017, 06:16 PM)

completely

S3 has built in redundancy that you can control.  There is a personal health dashboard that shows all of your resource groups that you're buying into.  They're all amazon, but for instance, I have buckets replicated in Northern VA and Northern California.

-wraith808 (November 02, 2017, 11:00 AM)

good tip,
mind you, presumably you dont know where exactly the other backup services are storing their/your data.

[wraith808]

I think my comment was misunderstood.

-Deozaan (November 01, 2017, 06:16 PM)

completely

S3 has built in redundancy that you can control.  There is a personal health dashboard that shows all of your resource groups that you're buying into.  They're all amazon, but for instance, I have buckets replicated in Northern VA and Northern California.

-wraith808 (November 02, 2017, 11:00 AM)

good tip,
mind you, presumably you dont know where exactly the other backup services are storing their/your data.

-tomos (November 03, 2017, 05:28 AM)

That's why I use Bare S3. 

Still trying to find the best software to use on top of it.  I've used B4A, Cloudberry, Syncovery, Expandrive- I've tried quite a few.  But all of them are lacking in some way, which is unfortunate.