The B2 API is slightly better in that we don't go through any load balancers like S3 does, so there is no choke point. We aren't even sure what Amazon is doing differently, but they can be a little faster in general for 1 thread (some people only see 20% faster, some see as high as 50% faster, might be latency to the datacenter and where you are located).Īs long as you use multiple threads, I make the radical claim that B2 can be faster than Amazon S3. This is "generally true" for 1 upload thread. But if a meteor hits that 1 datacenter and wipes out all of the equipment in a 1 mile blast radius, you won't be getting that data back unless you have a backup somewhere else.ĭisclaimer: I work for Backblaze so I'm biased. This helps insulate against failures like if one rack loses power (like if a power strip goes bad or a circuit breaker blows). In the one copy in one region in Backblaze B2, any file is "sharded" across 20 different servers in 20 different racks in 20 different locations inside that datacenter. So if this kind of redundancy is important to you for mission critical reasons Backblaze B2 would only be half as expensive as one copy in Amazon S3, not 1/4 as expensive.
To get a copy in two locations you have to pay twice as much and take some actions. To be absolutely clear, if you only upload and store and pay for 1 copy of your Backblaze B2 data, it is living in one region. Quietly the US-West is actually three separate data centers, but your data will only really land in 1 datacenter somewhere in US-West based on a few internal factors. Last I checked, Backblaze still stores most data in 1 location, no?īackblaze now has multiple regions! One in Europe (Netherlands) and one is called "US-West".
0 kommentar(er)
