Recognizing the limitations of cloud drives

Original Article ↗ Hacker News Discussion ↗

Cloud storage services like OneDrive, Dropbox, Google Drive, and iCloud are criticized for acting primarily as sync tools rather than true backups, with limited or opaque retention policies that can lead to permanent data loss months after accidental deletions or silent corruption. Commenters contrast these services with dedicated backup solutions and 3-2-1 strategies, emphasizing immutable, point-in-time snapshots, longer retention, and offsite or geo-redundant copies as essential for protection against hardware failure, user error, and ransomware. Many see growing value in self-hosted options (NAS, Nextcloud, Syncthing plus backup tools) or specialized backup providers, while noting that cost, complexity, and usability still drive most people to rely on commercial cloud drives despite their risks.

Backup vs. Sync Semantics

  • Strong debate over whether OneDrive/Dropbox/Google Drive count as “backup” or are “just sync.”
  • Critics: sync deletes or corrupts data across all devices; a true backup is a point-in-time, immutable snapshot that survives user error, ransomware, and long delays before discovery.
  • Defenders: cloud drives keep local + cloud copies, have version history and retention windows, so they function as backups for many users’ needs.
  • Some note that Microsoft also ships a separate “Windows Backup” and that OneDrive’s use of stubs and cloud-only files can undermine the assumption of a local copy.

Retention Policies & “Forever”

  • Retention window seen as central: if a provider shortens it, old deletions can become unrecoverable.
  • Some products keep deleted items indefinitely or until space runs out; others have fixed 30–90 day windows or limited “cycles.”
  • Several argue deleted/old versions should simply count against quota, letting users decide how much history to pay for.
  • Others warn that highly configurable retention creates complexity and corner-case bugs.

Local vs. Cloud Strategies

  • Many advocate 3-2-1 style backups, often with external drives, NAS, or friends’ colocated NAS boxes.
  • Disagreement on cost: some say long‑term cloud storage (e.g., iCloud $120/year for 2 TB) is far more expensive than rotating local SSD/HDDs; others value outsourcing hardware failures and ops.
  • RAID is repeatedly stressed as not a backup, only hardware redundancy.

Tools and UX

  • Desire for a merged “Dropbox + Time Machine/Borg” model: seamless sync plus deep, deduped history with tunable granularity.
  • Mixed experiences: OneDrive and iCloud are convenient but have had serious data-loss or rollback anecdotes; Dropbox sync considered reliable but web UI criticized as slow and bloated.
  • Syncthing gets both praise (works well for some) and strong warnings (sync conflicts, “out of sync” issues); it’s repeatedly labeled sync, not backup.
  • Nextcloud is cited as a flexible self‑hosted platform, often combined with snapshotting or separate backup tools (Restic/Borg/Kopia).

Security, Ransomware, and “Air Gaps”

  • Ransomware protection and immutable storage are highlighted as differentiators for real backup.
  • Marketing terms like “virtual air gap” are viewed skeptically; if it’s on a network, some argue, it’s not truly air‑gapped.

Reactions to Backblaze’s Article

  • Many see the article as a thinly veiled ad that misrepresents competitors’ versioning and rollback features.
  • Nonetheless, several participants still like Backblaze as a straightforward backup provider, especially when combined with local solutions.