#Hyperbackup opendrive full#
#Hyperbackup opendrive software#
#Hyperbackup opendrive download#
#Hyperbackup opendrive mac#

We could then go on to make links on the Mac WHEN POSSIBLE and the equivalent on Windows WHEN POSSIBLE, but it never became a large priority.

#Hyperbackup opendrive full#

The most general thing to do is make full copies.

#Hyperbackup opendrive software#

The software we develop at Backblaze is cross platform, so what we like to do is make the most general form first that will always work, then if customers complain or we want to refine it we special purpose code in per file system or per platform. The answer is not an excuse, it's just an explanation if you are curious. Here is what it looks like to hit 500 Mbits/sec upload speeds, this isn't photoshopped, it's a real screenshot on my development computer: Īnother question is: why not use hard links or symbolic links? That's the only real optimization possible here, everything else was on purpose. The bztrans_thread05 is launched for thread 05, thread 25, thread 45, thread 65, etc. One question asked here was do we know you can launch the same executable twice? Yes, and we do that. I prefer the Backblaze system, but I understand it upsets some customers that prefer the chrome experience. Meanwhile chrome is just one big list of processes all named the same thing (see the screenshot). Here is a screenshot showing what 'Chrome' looks like to me in Windows, and how it compares to how Backblaze's bztransmit looks like to me in Windows: In that screenshot, you can see there is the 'main thread', and 'worker threads'. We immediately have narrowed down what to look at. Or they say 'bztransmit is using too much memory'.

But now that I made multiple copies with different executable names, when the same customer says 'bztrans_thread03 is hung'. There was very little visibility into this. So BEFORE I made multiple copies of the executables with different names, a customer would say 'bztransmit is hung' or 'bztransmit is using up too much memory'. But when doing the actual transmission it spawns the bztrans_thread01, bztrans_thread02, bztrans_thread03, etc. The parent coordination process is called 'bztransmit'. Backblaze is multi-threaded to get higher performance. The different names for the executables are for different 'threads' which have different roles. On the Macintosh this is called Activity Monitor, same sort of thing. In Windows when you want to know what is going on behind the scenes, you can bring up Task Manager and look at the different names of the different processes that are running. Yes they are identical, the installer only ships with one copy of the executable, the installer then makes the copies on purpose. I'm the programmer at Backblaze that made the copies on purpose, I wrote some extra code to do this, and it's meant to help us debug certain things. I feel like they definitely know that you can execute the same binary multiple times. > Backblaze ships with 21 identical copies of the same executable It would not be intended to be able to automatically cross reference local and server data against each other to display what is and is not backed up on our servers. The Backblaze software is intended to prevent data loss.

There wouldn't be a way to compare hashes the way you describe in this case as that mechanism is simply not implemented into the Backblaze software. > I apologize, but this would in fact be the only sure fire way if you are concerned about any deleted files. What bugs me is that the Backblaze desktop software should be able to resolve this - it should be possible to do a hash of all the files that are in the most recent backup, and cross-check it with the hashes of the files on my machine.Įdit: This is the response from the Backblaze support: But even then I won't know if/which of my data was corrupted. So my only option is to do a full hard drive restore, costing $189 + customs in Europe, so at the end probably closer to 300€.

#Hyperbackup opendrive download#

I also can't download a full backup since Backblaze only allows downloads of up to 500GB at once. The only official solution is to manually check all files (millions in my case). It's possible that some data might be missing - Backblaze doesn't tell me though. Backblaze will not tell me the actual cause of this inconsistency. I just got a 'Safety Freeze' error - essentially some inconsistency with my backup. You know how everyone keeps telling you, a backup is only a true backup once you've done at least one restore? Now I know why (silly me). I've been using Backblaze for a few years for my home computer.