Wasabi.com Storage 1TB-$58/yr | S3 compatible Cloud Storage

mehargags

Has anyone used wasabi.com cloud storage

They have S3 compliant access protocol Cloud Storage and is coming cheap for 1TB @ $4.99/mo or $58/yr

rClone also supports it so I guess it can be a good backup storage option for servers.

Please share your experiences... Thx

levnode

I doubt this is a question. It looks like an ads.

willie

There's been some discussion of it in the past. Reports are kind of mixed. "Unlimited" egress is a red flag.

https://www.lowendtalk.com/search?Search=wasabi.com

Jun

I'd go for backblaze b2 over wasabi because for the same price,

1. backblaze is more transparent about how they store their data
2. wasabi falsely claims 11x9 data durability, which is the same level as Amazon S3. AFAIK, S3 keeps multiple full copies of data in different datacenters. With wasabi's price, they would have at best kept some parity copies in the same datacenter just as backblaze does (which we don't know for sure because wasabi does not disclose their internals). At least backblaze doesn't exaggerate their durability(8x9), while wasabi in their official documentation claims that they are better than backblaze because they have better durability guarantee - immoral I'll say. I guess their durability guarantee is something like "100% uptime guarantee" to wasabi.
3. backblaze provides free hard disk shipping in case you want to restore data - saves you time if your home internet connection is not 1Gbps.

Some pro's of wasabi over backblaze might be

1. Unlimited API calls - which might not be much of a problem because I store few terabytes of data and run daily backup from 5 different machines and have never hit free API call quota of backblaze.
2. Free download - it's not something like Dropbox Public folder, It's free S3 download API call without bandwidth limit or charge. Be warned, in their FAQ, they obscurely state that they might not be happy with abuse of download, which I would count as no free download.
3. S3-compatible API - depending on the use case, this may be the real reason to prefer wasabi over backblaze.

In the end, for backup, I'd recommend backblaze over wasabi.

Disclaimer: I'm a backblaze b2 customer. I've just tried wasabi for their free 1T trial. I did my research a while ago and this information might not be up-to-date.

Edit: I quickly searched r/datahoarder for b2 vs wasabi and came across this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/6r31xn/b2_cloud_vs_wasabi_storage/

mehargags

Thx @Jun,

Last time I check B2, it felt complicated to understand the parameters, what is charged (like downloads, etc.) so I gave up on reading. Will surely take a look again.

What about pricing... is B2 comparable to Wasabi's pricing ?

Jun

@mehargags said:
Thx @Jun,

Last time I check B2, it felt complicated to understand the parameters, what is charged (like downloads, etc.) so I gave up on reading. Will surely take a look again.

What about pricing... is B2 comparable to Wasabi's pricing ?

For storage, B2 and wasabi costs the same. Wasabi used to be cheaper when they tried to compete with b2, soon learned that it is not sustainable. If you plan on making heavy API calls or downloads, B2 might cost you slightly more, while wasabi doesn't have additional charge on it. Again, it heavily depends on use case and I recommend backblaze b2 over wasabi for backup purpose only.

I haven't looked into b2's API's because I use API wrappers for backup such as b2 and rclone. However, if you are planning to develop an application using their API, I'd go for wasabi for development and S3 for deployment, since their API's are compatible and no serious data is stored behind the black box. I wouldn't go for neither backblaze nor wasabi for any serious business.

cirrus_cloud

@Jun said:

@mehargags said:
Thx @Jun,

Last time I check B2, it felt complicated to understand the parameters, what is charged (like downloads, etc.) so I gave up on reading. Will surely take a look again.

What about pricing... is B2 comparable to Wasabi's pricing ?

For storage, B2 and wasabi costs the same. Wasabi used to be cheaper when they tried to compete with b2, soon learned that it is not sustainable. If you plan on making heavy API calls or downloads, B2 might cost you slightly more, while wasabi doesn't have additional charge on it. Again, it heavily depends on use case and I recommend backblaze b2 over wasabi for backup purpose only.

I haven't looked into b2's API's because I use API wrappers for backup such as b2 and rclone. However, if you are planning to develop an application using their API, I'd go for wasabi for development and S3 for deployment, since their API's are compatible and no serious data is stored behind the black box. I wouldn't go for neither backblaze nor wasabi for any serious business.

Wasabi is way cheaper if data is actually downloaded. It's $5/TB with "unlimited" download (egress). There's the other (older, original, I think?) plan that's $4/TB, but I think it's $0.04 per GB downloaded. So I don't think their pricing has changed, unless I'm wrong.

I went with Wasabi because I don't have to think about restoring some data according to their current pricing model. And I can actually verify the backup is correct, meaning Arq can read all of the data on Wasabi and checksum it, which should match my local copy.

jar

I use it for my personal stuff right now. It's object storage for the more average consumer, at prices that are more easily understood by a larger audience. Basically this is to S3 what Dropbox is to having an sshfs mount.

realbusiness

@Jun said:
I'd go for backblaze b2 over wasabi because for the same price,

1. backblaze is more transparent about how they store their data
2. wasabi falsely claims 11x9 data durability, which is the same level as Amazon S3. AFAIK, S3 keeps multiple full copies of data in different datacenters. With wasabi's price, they would have at best kept some parity copies in the same datacenter just as backblaze does (which we don't know for sure because wasabi does not disclose their internals). At least backblaze doesn't exaggerate their durability(8x9), while wasabi in their official documentation claims that they are better than backblaze because they have better durability guarantee - immoral I'll say. I guess their durability guarantee is something like "100% uptime guarantee" to wasabi.
3. backblaze provides free hard disk shipping in case you want to restore data - saves you time if your home internet connection is not 1Gbps.

Some pro's of wasabi over backblaze might be

1. Unlimited API calls - which might not be much of a problem because I store few terabytes of data and run daily backup from 5 different machines and have never hit free API call quota of backblaze.
2. Free download - it's not something like Dropbox Public folder, It's free S3 download API call without bandwidth limit or charge. Be warned, in their FAQ, they obscurely state that they might not be happy with abuse of download, which I would count as no free download.
3. S3-compatible API - depending on the use case, this may be the real reason to prefer wasabi over backblaze.

In the end, for backup, I'd recommend backblaze over wasabi.

Disclaimer: I'm a backblaze b2 customer. I've just tried wasabi for their free 1T trial. I did my research a while ago and this information might not be up-to-date.

Edit: I quickly searched r/datahoarder for b2 vs wasabi and came across this thread: https://www.reddit.com/r/DataHoarder/comments/6r31xn/b2_cloud_vs_wasabi_storage/

Just so that other readers are not misled, Wasabi's standard storage is geo-redundant. Not sure how many 9's it changes, but I think it should qualify for 11 9's.

willie

11 9's is ludicrous no matter how redundant.

cirrus_cloud

Just so that other readers are not misled, Wasabi's standard storage is geo-redundant. Not sure how many 9's it changes, but I think it should qualify for 11 9's.

Wait, how can it be geo-redundant? Their first location was in Virginia. They just added Washington state.

In August, I believe they're going to add the option for geo-redundancy (Virginia and Washington state).

Detruire

willie said: 11 9's is ludicrous no matter how redundant.

Indeed... 11 9s is less than 316 microseconds of downtime per year.

For reference: Azure's storage SLA is 3 9s

twing

@Jun said:
I'd go for backblaze b2 over wasabi because for the same price,

Only problem for backblaze b2 is that their european speeds suck unless you use multiple connections. Using rclone on a single file from my ISP in the UK, i only get 0.5Mbit/sec. My servers at OVH get around 5Mbit/sec

Vinnyletje

@Detruire said:

willie said: 11 9's is ludicrous no matter how redundant.

Indeed... 11 9s is less than 316 microseconds of downtime per year.

For reference: Azure's storage SLA is 3 9s

Those 11 9s are for the data durability not uptime of the service.

Jun

realbusiness said: Just so that other readers are not misled, Wasabi's standard storage is geo-redundant. Not sure how many 9's it changes, but I think it should qualify for 11 9's.

Source? I recall wasabi representative on reddit saying that they do have two datacenters however the data is NOT geo-redundant, just like Backblaze. Besides, AWS S3 keeps three full copies of files in three different datacenters, at least one in different continent. Neither backblaze nor wasabi (parity copy on the same datacenter) is no close match to S3.

@Detruire said:

willie said: 11 9's is ludicrous no matter how redundant.

Indeed... 11 9s is less than 316 microseconds of downtime per year.

For reference: Azure's storage SLA is 3 9s

I'm not a pro in this field and I don't trust SLA in general. My point is that Wasabi's SLA and their advertisement regarding it (saying that they are safer than Backblaze, as safe as Amazon) is immoral.

twing said: Only problem for backblaze b2 is that their european speeds suck unless you use multiple connections. Using rclone on a single file from my ISP in the UK, i only get 0.5Mbit/sec. My servers at OVH get around 5Mbit/sec

That's why both backblaze and wasabi provides you free trial. There is speed difference however not significant from where I live therefore I recommended backblaze. I recently had a chance to go back to Korea shortly and figured out Wasabi is way faster from Korea as well. YMMV.

vmp32k

I tried their free trial for two days and decided it was too slow for me.

So far I've been using duplicity with B2 which is adequately quick, like 10-20mb/s - with Wasabi (duplicity S3 backend) I got 500kb/s. Unbearably slow. (me and my servers are in europe)

I've let it make a full backup over night which didn't even finish when I checked in the morning whereas B2 only needed like 3 hours at most.
Also I don't like the way S3 ACLs/IAM work, maybe because I never bothered to learn it properly, but that's just my opinion in general/not specific to this one provider.

realbusiness

Is this blog they say

https://wasabi.com/blog/wasabi-debuts-u-s-west-coast-new-data-center-hillsboro-oregon/

Wasabi customers can now expect more connectivity options, additional data center redundancy, automatic data replication and failover services, and faster speeds with close proximity to their respective data centers.

When the EU DC opens up later this year, I think then you will have your data stored on a different continent!

Jun

@realbusiness said:
Is this blog they say

https://wasabi.com/blog/wasabi-debuts-u-s-west-coast-new-data-center-hillsboro-oregon/

Wasabi customers can now expect more connectivity options, additional data center redundancy, automatic data replication and failover services, and faster speeds with close proximity to their respective data centers.

When the EU DC opens up later this year, I think then you will have your data stored on a different continent!

So, they MAY provide such options in the future. Interesting. They're still not transparent about how they store data and it is safe to assume that the data is NOT geo-redundant until they explicitly say so. However, this surely is a interesting news. I'll definitely follow up with wasabi. Thanks for the pointer.