Is this bull?
Is this bull?
Software that keeps checking for backups will use up a lot of system resources. Crashplan consumes a significant amount of RAM (around 4 TB of important data on one of my file servers also goes to the cloud), which is why it's hosted on the server instead of my main machine. Strong software needs resources to function. This doesn't mean Backblaze is ideal — I don't personally use it — but the video creator doesn't really make a strong case. Often, comparisons between similar tasks aren't very helpful. It just seems like someone who got frustrated with Backblaze.
Opt for a different approach instead of watching the entire situation.
He mentions it consumes a significant amount of system resources. Wasn't aware of that. It seems you can only pause it or perform manual backups, but then you might miss turning it back on. He also explains that they delete your data once the drive is disconnected, even though you're still paying. I understand this might be due to their servers not being able to store large amounts of data, which is a bit disappointing.
Viewed the video and reviewed the comments. Appears to be another instance where a user avoids adhering to the service's suggested steps or incurs additional costs for the desired service level.
Software that keeps checking for backups will use up a lot of system resources. Crashplan consumes a significant amount of RAM (around 4 TB of important data on one of my file servers also goes to the cloud), which is why it's hosted on the server instead of my main machine. Strong software needs resources to function. This doesn't mean Backblaze is ideal — I don't personally use it — but the video creator doesn't really make a strong case. Often, comparisons between similar tools are limited or biased, especially if someone is upset about the service.