Thanks for the feedback on both pricing and functionality. We are evaluating both issues you've raised, but would like to get a little more information about the concerns so we can make the most effective changes.
First, on pricing - it looks like the Acronis offering does not support external drives or network drives at this time (http://www.acronis.com/homecomputing/pr ... tml#faq-45). This appears to be a common theme among most of the lower cost providers of online backup - offering a reduced effective price per GB but dramatically limiting the devices or systems that are supported, and consequently reducing the actual amount of data an end user can conveniently store. We are assuming that this is not really a viable alternative for you, but want to double check - would you be interested in a similarly priced but also similarly restricted plan? Nearly all of the discontent with the current pricing in this thread seems to come from comparison to offerings that do not actually support network attached storage, so we want to make sure that we are covering this need if it is really there.
The iDrive offering you mention does not appear to have a device restriction, but does include some language regarding "home use." While functional differences certainly remain (e.g. ability to configure remotely, ability to run natively on the ReadyNAS so as not to require a local host to be on, connected, and secure), this appears to present a pretty low effective cost per GB. Would a similarly structured plan, restricted to "home use" only, be a compelling service for you?
Second, on functionality - We are constantly working to improve the usability and extend the functionality of the web-based tools. It sounds like a key feature you are looking for is the ability to right-click or select from an options menu to see the total storage contained within a particular folder - can you confirm that this is the desired functionality? If so, we are happy to report that this will be available shortly. If not, please just let us know (via post or private message) more about the specific feature(s) you are interested in and we can add that feedback to our product road map.
If my math is correct it would cost me $9341.64 per year to use ReadyNAS vault, assuming I do not add any data. Given Comcast's recent announcement regarding use of their home service above 250 GB/month (up+down) marking you as an excessive user (and possible termination of service after two months above quota) I'm not even sure how I could get the data to the vault (or any other service).
Server colocation could be an alternative if it wasn't also so expensive (lowest price I found would be $1200 per year). Seems the only option is: buy two ReadyNAS with equal capacity, locally sync them up, take one to a friends house and RSYNC moving forward.
Thanks for taking interest in user opinion. I agree with you when it comes to the providers you mentioned. Even the venerable Mozy and Carbonite suffer from limitations/restrictions in service use.
I would really like to be able to perform cloud backup of my Readynas' directly from the unit, but choose to use Jungledisk through a desktop instead. I've had such good luck with Jungledisk for the last 3+ years that its hard to consider others. That said, I would possibly consider the Vault service if its pricing model was competitive with Jungledisk. It would also need features such as:
1) AES128/256 encryption with no one else holding the keys but me 2) ability to select directories within a share for selective backup 3) include/exclude lists for file types (such as .tmp or ~*.*) 4) Delta file copy (Comcast isn't the only one with bandwidth caps) 5) Compression of backup data to reduce storage costs 6) previous version backup
7) Deduplication would also be nice, but thats not as critical.
Thank you very much for soliciting input. I was becoming used to being ignored on Netgear's forums.
Several others have already responded with some good points. Here is what I would add:
To your point about backing up NAS/UNC's, you are correct in general, and I frankly don't understand the reasoning behind the near universal lack of support for this, given the growing prevalance of NAS in the consumer market. However, it turns out that despite what they say, I have found that pretty much all of them (Acronis, Mozy, etc.) will in fact allow you to back up from a mapped drive if it is mapped at login. The clear disadvantage of having to back up NAS this way is that you must map a drive to each share you want to back up, and the account that does this must be logged in (there are ways around this last point, though). Although it's inconvenient, this method will work and allows one to use reasonably priced services.
Which leads me to your inquiry about alternative pricing plans. I once again don't get why it should matter at all to an online backup vendor where or from what device the data comes; I am purchasing a given amount of backup capacity and should be able to use it in whatever way I choose. I can't see that the source device has any bearing whatever on the cost of providing the service. So, no, I would not be particularly interested in a device-restricted plan. A lower-priced "home use" plan might be of interest to me, but I would need to understand what restrictions it would entail. Would you base such a plan on less frequent backups and therefore lower bandwidth usage, or what?
As for functionality, yes -- I would love to have the ability to see space usage on an individual folder (and subfolder) basis. To my mind, the lack of this feature in a backup product which charges based on space usage is inexplicable except as a mechanism for increasing revenue. In the same vein, the lack of an ability to automatically delete from backup those items which have been deleted at the source hobbles the entire product and again seems like a revenue-enhancement ploy. Providing only for manual data deletion is an overly simplistic form of data protection and makes any kind of space management an exercise in time and patience. It should not be necessary for me to explain better ways of handling this; every other vendor has done so.
Now for some slightly less severe annoyances:
1) Under the Backup/Restore tab, after selecting Manage Backup Jobs, so much (vertical) space is consumed by the top logo and the various banners that the area left for displaying the actual job listing is tiny, requiring constant scrolling. How about maximizing work area and minimzing the extraneous elements?
2) There is no useful help information accessible on the website. Clicking the Help button on the right simply loads the Netgear general support page. How about some FAQ's, at least? Explain how to back up all home directories. Explain how to exclude folders and files; whether wildcards are supported, etc. Explain how the continuous backup works -- how often & what triggers it. I could go on and on here. There is nothing, though. A big FU to the user -- go somewhere else to find the answers, it says.
3) The operation of the website itself has myriad inconsistencies. The one that annoys me the most is the fact that after I delete a subfolder from a folder AND empty the trash, the subfolder still is displayed under the hierarchy in the left pane. This makes it darn difficult to keep track of what I've deleted and what I haven't. This happens with the Trash, too. Put some stuff in there, Empty Trash, and folders and subfolders still show under Trash on the left. Click on Trash, and it says "No Item in Trash", but click on a folder still showing under Trash on the left, and the items within still display. Is the trash emptied or not? Who knows?
4) Reporting is clumsy and unituitive. How about providing standard time ranges (the last week, month, etc.) in addition to the current custom range? How about integrating error information with the backup job status instead of making us have to look it up separately? How about a pie chart showing account usage by share instead of the almost useless total?
And, again, I could go on and on. Really, the ONLY virtue Vault has going for it is the integration with Readynas.
Great input. While many of the points your raise and suggestions you offer could justify extensive discussion threads on their own, a few quick thoughts below...
@claykin:
Thanks for helping to highlight the misconception regarding "apples to apples" comparisons. When many of the most aggressive advertisers in the space are offering "unlimited" storage but restricting the devices that are covered, it can be challenging for us to explain the difference.
The software you are currently using is a nice alternative and very reasonable from a cost perspective (essentially passing Amazon S3 costs directly to you). It does not, as you note, currently run natively on the NAS, so a connected host is required. Also, for the same reason, you cannot manage or configure via the web. We are working to devise pricing that will be closer to what you are seeing there.
We also appreciate your suggestions. Some are coming just around the corner (#2 and #3 are really just a matter of exposing the interfaces to you) and almost all the others are part of the road map. If you private message me your username, we can alert you for beta release of this functionality as it becomes available. As a follow up, are the desired features in order of priority or importance to you?
@rschoonh
We can't say for sure why other providers restrict access based on device, but the conventional wisdom in the blogo-sphere appears to be that the make these restrictions for cost management purposes. That is, they may offer "unlimited" or large fixed amounts under the assumption that most users will not actually use that much space. Because outliers who either truly take advantage of the full amount of space offered or test the limits of "unlimited" become very unprofitable very fast for them, they then may institute restrictions that make it practically very unlikely for such outliers to influence their average storage. While sophisticated users have been able, in some instances, to develop work around techniques to use services for unsanctioned devices, these users run the risk of having their service shut off by the providers for violations of the terms of use.
What we can say for sure is that your feature requests (folder level storage visibility and rules-based deletion) are very reasonable and echoed by others in more private communication. We are working on implementing them now and will take the other issues you've identified as problems or annoyances into account as we proceed.
Again, while we are disappointed that you've had a challenging experience, we appreciate the candid and clear feedback very much and will attempt to improve based on your (collective) input.
Some very interesting discussion on this forum. Even though I currently have unlimited storage with Mozy I'm not expecting NetGear to offer exactly the same. The cost model currently on offer is very high by comparison and as stated elsewhere on this topic it is currently exacerbated by the storage being eaten up by old versions and deleted files. But, for this extra cost I get a service far inferior to Mozy. I'm hoping it won't be too long before the service performs well enough to at least be a viable alternative to Mozy (I'd much prefer to directly backup from the NAS rather than via a PC).
You got it. That said, Vault is not designed to store all your NAS data. Its designed to store the most critical files and those files that change frequently. For media files you can do local backups and rotate them offsite. Or do NAS to NAS backup.
Anyone who wishes to store 100's or 1000's of GB of data in the cloud is best served by seeding the backup using a USB disk you send to the provider. Several online backup services offer the option for you to send your data via disk for the initial backup.
You got it. That said, Vault is not designed to store all your NAS data. Its designed to store the most critical files and those files that change frequently. For media files you can do local backups and rotate them offsite. Or do NAS to NAS backup.
I was researching the NAS to NAS option and realized the Duo would make a perfect secondary backup NAS. With discounts and a single 500GB drive, one can be had for < $250USD. However, I was disappointed to learn the Duo doesn't support rsync over SSH so that's not really a viable alternative either. 😞
I keep coming back to my original request - give me Amazon S3 as a backup choice in Frontview...please 🙂
What Netgear really needs to do is sell Vault to someone who can run it more effectively. Netgear is a hardware manufacturer, not a service company- they need to get out of that business.
What Netgear really needs to do is sell Vault to someone who can run it more effectively. Netgear is a hardware manufacturer, not a service company- they need to get out of that business.
OK- so I can use Vault to backup my 4-500gb nas for about $1,400 (/yr) or I can back it up to egnyte for less than half that price. So I'm still trying to understand Vault's pricing....? Can anyone help me with that?
and unfortunately isn't even "great". The software has a number of serious deficiencies - such as not being able to control amount of history held and inconsistent log info. I wouldn't mind paying a bit over the odds for good software that worked directly off the NAS, but not a lot more money for a barely functional capability.
and unfortunately isn't even "great". The software has a number of serious deficiencies - such as not being able to control amount of history held and inconsistent log info. I wouldn't mind paying a bit over the odds for good software that worked directly off the NAS, but not a lot more money for a barely functional capability.
After an extended trial I stopped using Vault in July - at that point it was the latest plugin. Vault support had worked with me on some of the problems including trying a new plugin. This helped, but there were still outstanding issues. My current solution is synching files to my PC and using Mozy - an over-complex solution to my mind, but at least cost effective and the Mozy software works well and has better security.
My price point is about $1 / gb for the year. I'd be happy with one backup / month (so the vendor's bandwidth isn't tied up all the time). In a world where you can buy a 1TB drive for under $60 retail, the cost to run it along with the fixed overhead of adequate security etc..., that price point would sure seem to me like it would provide a satisfactory return to investors. Perhaps I should go into that business?
C'mon folks- there's a huge market out here waiting for pricing to get real.
I see the 'advice' to "Backup your data" then "Install this" or "Swap the drive" or ...
My question is if I can't afford ReadyNas Vault and the on-line sites are too slow on my internet connection - other than buying another hard drive (that will eventually fail) what other backup media is practical for 1 TB + backup? Tape is old tech, unreliable and cartridges deteriorate with age, so tape is not an answer. What do other folks here use?
I just purchased a 250gb encrypted stand alone usb drive. My plan is to take the 75gb+ (and growing ever larger) section of my duo that is critical to us (pictures / music / various other backup folders), throw a copy of it all onto that drive, and store it off site someplace. My plan is to update it about every quarter year, which will be fine for us.
This is where I believe Netgear could really shine- they could offer the 'vault' type service to their ever growing homeowner/home user market more inexpensively if you agreed to only update the backup 4-8 times/yr (which would reduce the bandwidth needs and would ensure that they are not cannibalizing their buisness customer accounts). Sadly, they continue to price that service as though we are all business customers and need to backup every day or every week.
Well, was looking for online backup (directly from NAS) at the Vault, but seeing these prices I will look for other solutions. Two options: - Buy another, similar, NAS configuration. Place it in another location and mirror the two NASses over the internet (would be the neatest solution). - Buy two 2TB ext HD's. Backup my NAS on one HD, place that in a remote location. After x period, make a new backup on the second HD and replace that one with the first HD at the remote location (having the first HD at home again for the next periodical backup). So I will continuously (with a x time interval) be swapping ext. HD's from my home an remote location.
In yet another example of how far out of whack the ReadyNAS Vault pricing is, Google announced User Managed Storage yesterday. Want 1TB of storage in the cloud? Google charges $256 per year. ReadyNAS Vault? ...a comical $3049.
Yes, I understand the comparison is a bit of apples and oranges since the Google storage is no way integrated with the ReadyNAS. The point here is that ReadyNAS Vault integration is not a feature customers are willing to pay a >10x price premium for.
Cloud storage is a commodity and as such has commodity pricing (for everyone other than the ReadyNAS team). Charging your customers a premium for a commodity is a losing proposition.
$.0213 per GB/Month. Wow, that is serious cheap. However its not an open storage solution where an end user can store whatever they want. According to this Google Blog its limited to Google Apps, Docs, etc..
