Cloudron should become its own backup provider
-
My feature request is that Cloudron should offer backups as a provider itself for an additional fee. Hear me out.
This is why I think it would be a good idea:
- The code is basically already there. Cloudron has backup and restore code and I can manage my backups from the cloudron dashboard. The rest (e.g. encryption algorithm) is open-source.
- Cloudron has the knowledge of how to build secure infrastructure.
- Cloudron could get a good, potentially discounted deal with a white-label infrastructure provider, potentially using the same hardware as one of the bigger names out there, but using much simpler software.
- It would be a great additional add-on for cloudron to upsell existing customers with more value.
- Cloudron Backup would only exist for cloudron users. There is no need to build a website, a UI, or do marketing. Only existing cloudron users can optionally use it. This means the large overhead the other providers have wouldn't exist. Cloudron can turn this into an add-on, this shouldn't be a standalone product (as that has been done before)
- I trust Cloudron already with my server infrastructure, the code could easily be open-sourced as the value is in the infrastructure, not the code, so trust can be built easily.
Here is why I would use Cloudron backup instead of one of the existing providers:
- Some of the existing providers target enterprise clients
- Some are really expensivevalue
- Basically all of them have a shitty UI that I don't really need anyway
- The only thing I really need is lots of affordable GB, and for them to be secure. And perhaps a very simple UI (e.g. like the file manager for volumes) to access the backup from outside of Cloudron. That's basically it, no additional settings needed.
A solution integrated into Cloudron could be easier to set up, more affordable than alternatives and be a good business opportunity to increase the amount of money it makes from existing clients (optionally).
That's why I think Cloudron should consider adding integrated Backups.
-
-
@ekevu123 maybe I misunderstood then. Isn't that what "Cloudron should offer backups as a provider itself" means? To be a storage company?
edit: maybe you are saying don't be a generic storage provider but just provide a way to store Cloudron backups alone. as in, we could maybe even get into an agreement with some other storage provider and whitelabel it but at the same time provide assurance of being rock solid.
-
@girish said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
agreement with some other storage provider and whitelabel it but at the same time provide assurance of being rock solid.
But how can you offer that assurance if you can't control the hardware, network, etc.? For instance, I'm having issues with Backblaze, they even acknowledge the issue is on their end, but no ETA on a fix. Eventually, if the issue isn't fixed, I'm going to dump BB and moved elsewhere. That's bad rep that Cloudron could also face with no real control over the matter. If you go with some premium provider, then it might end up too expensive.
It's a neat idea, but to me, Cloudron has been top-notch in resolving any issues that creep up, and I don't believe this addition will keep that superb image intact. Just voicing some cons of the proposed idea. Personally, I'd rather have a fully integrated backup system if possible so +1 from me.
-
@girish said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
@ekevu123 maybe I misunderstood then. Isn't that what "Cloudron should offer backups as a provider itself" means? To be a storage company?
edit: maybe you are saying don't be a generic storage provider but just provide a way to store Cloudron backups alone. as in, we could maybe even get into an agreement with some other storage provider and whitelabel it but at the same time provide assurance of being rock solid.
I assume you are imagining this as a separate storage company, which it shouldn't be. I don't think you should provide any offer to non-cloudron users, hence, no separate company structure is needed. This would rather be an add-on, where as a backup provider, I could choose Cloudron. You guys would very literally only need to provide the storage for it as I could manage the backup from cloudron anyway. And one separate interface for emergency access of the backup. That's it. You have backup-restore already, so once you integrate another source, nothing else is needed.
In return, people like me would be willing to pay you more for this (instead of Backblaze in my case, which I am having issues with as well).
So, think this through from the perspective of an integrated and separately paid add-on for users - from the perspective: What would be the easiest solution to the problem "I need a backup for my server" instead of a separate side-business that diverts resources.
I don't think it is that hard either, because I am still convinced it needs more than an a rented drive or object storage with some sort of provider that has the resources anyway.
-
@ekevu123 whether they offer it to current Cloudron customers only or to everyone makes no difference when it comes to what it takes for this idea to come to fruition. Cloudron needs to be able to resolve any issues if they want to advertise it as a reliable backup option and that means full control over the infrastructure. It’s a huge undertaking. Using a whitelabel service has more risks than whatever value you think it’ll add. Read BB’s paper on hard drive stats and you’ll get an idea of how massive this undertaking is if you want to do it well. Even then, you’re bound to run into issues. If you made it this far and have set up Cloudron, connecting your external storage isn’t any harder. You’re asking Cloudron to be a jack of all trades and a master of none.
https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive-test-data
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q2-2024/
-
@humptydumpty said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
@ekevu123 whether they offer it to current Cloudron customers only or to everyone makes no difference when it comes to what it takes for this idea to come to fruition. Cloudron needs to be able to resolve any issues if they want to advertise it as a reliable backup option and that means full control over the infrastructure. It’s a huge undertaking. Using a whitelabel service has more risks than whatever value you think it’ll add. Read BB’s paper on hard drive stats and you’ll get an idea of how massive this undertaking is if you want to do it well. Even then, you’re bound to run into issues. If you made it this far and have set up Cloudron, connecting your external storage isn’t any harder. You’re asking Cloudron to be a jack of all trades and a master of none.
https://www.backblaze.com/cloud-storage/resources/hard-drive-test-data
https://www.backblaze.com/blog/backblaze-drive-stats-for-q2-2024/
I am sorry, but you are very wrong here. In fact, it makes a huge difference. Here are things you need to implement if you want to offer this service generally, not only to cloudron customers:
- the ability to interface with various data sources
- a user interface for managing this
- a website
- marketing
If I was Cloudron and decided to implement this, I would essentially turn to established providers such as Vultr, Amazon or Digital Ocean and try to get a deal with them. And then this "huge undertaking" wouldn't be so huge anymore:
- Cloudron already needs to ensure that the backup process works
- Cloudron already needs to ensure that the restore process works
The only thing outside of Cloudron's control would be the hardware used. But then again - if I go to services like Backblaze, I don't have control over this either. If I new my backup was stored, for example, on a Digital Ocean object storage hosted in Germany and managed by Cloudron Backup, I would trust it even more.
Also, we have left the age where you need to control your infrastructure yourself, unless you are paranoid. The world has moved on from that. We now know that infrastructure can be managed more effectively by companies specialised on that. You might be the person who has his server at home, @humptydumpty , I am most certainly not.Now, you could argue that taking the risk of adding hardware infrastructure provided by these companies is just an additional risk for no reason. I would say that is called business: You add a feature that earns the company more money, so you also need to think about how to keep it manageable. But that is a very normal thing to do. I bet Cloudron could get a dedicated account manager if it added potentially numerous clients etc. Also, needless to say that the infrastructure provided by these companies is probably managed even better than Cloudron ever could if they owned the servers (no offense here). That's why I would trust the solution "Cloudron provides an integrated backup with DO/Vultr/Amazon hosted in Europe" even more than as if they advertised it with their own infrastructure.
All in all, the arguments presented in this thread above are all "let's figure out the details" arguments for me instead of points that break the feature.
-
@ekevu123 said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
If I new my backup was stored, for example, on a Digital Ocean object storage hosted in Germany and managed by Cloudron Backup, I would trust it even more.
Why? I fail to see how it's more secure/reliable than using your own backup provider directly. As you said, Cloudron already makes sure that backups work reliably on their end. If we take our common issue with BB as an example, Cloudron will eventually face a provider issue and what could Cloudron do that we can't already with said provider, other than open a ticket and wait patiently for a fix. Again, no real control or value for CR here.
@ekevu123 said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
Also, we have left the age where you need to control your infrastructure yourself, unless you are paranoid. The world has moved on from that. We now know that infrastructure can be managed more effectively by companies specialised on that. You might be the person who has his server at home, @humptydumpty , I am most certainly not.
Where the heck did this come from? In any case, please let me elaborate on my set up. Yes, I do have a "home server", an "on-premise" (at work) server, and a VPS at Hetzner. The use-cases are (in order): personal, internal apps, business critical. As for being paranoid, you forgot to mention my tin foil hat. Your view on business requirements is quite limited to your own and doesn't take into account businesses that have to comply with privacy regulations like GDPR, COPPA, HIPAA, CCPA, etc. Also, being "compliant" isn't good enough for some of us. I can safely say I did everything that I could to safeguard my clients' info by going the extra mile.
@ekevu123 said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
I would say that is called business: You add a feature that earns the company more money, so you also need to think about how to keep it manageable.
Business. Cool. Let's talk pricing, then. For CR to make money, they have to add a markup and sell at a higher price than the provider. Even if CR gets volume discounts and sells the storage at the same price as the provider. Why should I use the Cloudron storage instead of, say, DO storage directly? Considering that all backup options are supported and timely maintained on the CR side. What advantages does Cloudron offer as a middleman that could make it a better option?
-
The main advantage of using Cloudron's storage over managing backups with a provider like DigitalOcean directly is simplicity and convenience. Cloudron could offer a storage solution that’s already configured for you, so there’s no need to mess with setting things up yourself. It’s essentially a one-click solution: everything’s integrated seamlessly within Cloudron.
Yes, you could handle backups directly with DO or other providers, but having Cloudron manage the backup configuration can save time and reduce the potential for errors. You don't have to worry about ensuring all the settings are right: Cloudron takes care of it, and if anything goes wrong, their support has a better idea of the setup. For someone who values ease of use, that could justify the markup.
While Cloudron may not offer more control over issues related to the provider itself, the advantage lies in reducing your manual workload. You’re essentially paying for that added convenience and peace of mind.
-
@humptydumpty said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
@ekevu123 said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
If I new my backup was stored, for example, on a Digital Ocean object storage hosted in Germany and managed by Cloudron Backup, I would trust it even more.
Why? I fail to see how it's more secure/reliable than using your own backup provider directly. As you said, Cloudron already makes sure that backups work reliably on their end. If we take our common issue with BB as an example, Cloudron will eventually face a provider issue and what could Cloudron do that we can't already with said provider, other than open a ticket and wait patiently for a fix. Again, no real control or value for CR here.
That‘s what SLAs are for. And it’s at least possible that Cloudron would have other support levels due to higher volume with such a provider than you.
Also, you’re not limited to what the provider offers and whether it’s compatible or not - Cloudron could run e.g. https://github.com/restic/rest-server on such infrastructure to ensure successful backups.
Those are two advantages for Cloudron as a middle man
-
@necrevistonnezr valid points but we’re comparing apples to oranges if you’re bringing rest server to the table (unless we already have that backup option available). I’m on my phone, will check later. As for having higher support levels, it’s nice and all, but you’re still on the same hardware.
@nottheend I also doubt the Cloudron backup will be automagically set up for you considering:
- it’s an optional feature; additional sub required
- you need to input your decryption key
- default settings might not work for all apps e.g. having too many small files vs. fewer but large sized files - this is where multiple backup destinations comes in handy.
-
@nottheend said in Cloudron should become its own backup provider:
the advantage lies in reducing your manual workload.
The "workload" is a one-time thing. There are other things you need to manually set up for your server/apps to work. Based on that logic, what's next? CR DNS UI? CR Hosting? CR Bagels?
-
@humptydumpty Valid points, but the main focus here is how Cloudron could simplify backups by providing an already-configured solution. Sure, it may require some initial setup, but the idea is that it reduces ongoing manual work and offers peace of mind. If one fails to setup the backup, data is eventually lost. Lost DNS entries are less severe. Things like running Restic or leveraging higher support levels could be added advantages if Cloudron manages the infrastructure. Let's keep the discussion about whether that kind of convenience and integration is worth considering, rather than comparing unrelated scenarios.
-
If we are talking about the business case of this, then I wouldn't think too big - yes, some companies have to follow regulations and would opt for another solution. Sure, that's fine.
The target group would be all kinds of small server owners. I would use it for my private and my small company server where I am, fortunately, not bound by regulations.
I don't know actually who preferably uses Cloudron, whether this is more of a company product or if this is more used by small companies or private individuals.
Regarding the possible markup, I think Cloudron would need to find once a cooperation partner company that could guarantee a good setup. If Cloudron used Backblaze, for example, then I could use them myself. But there are tons of smaller, yet reliable companies that could provide a good solution.
Maybe other users can also weigh in on their needs if someone else reads this?
-
I see the clear value of such feature request considering also:
- allow having more than one provider/region for backups just in case
- let the user decide between fully trusting CR or handling backups themselves
- let the users decide additional backups options and rules (exclusions, per app settings like frequency of backups...), through rclone or so especially if cost is related to the frequency and size of backups
- ease cloudron instances migration as backups are already managed by cloudron
- already today Cloudron users and staff spend lot of time dealing with backup issues and being anxious with that. With every backup provider being a different story that can cause failure and dataloss, it would be nice to make
backups handling a commodity part of the whole package, as a premium feature
But it's a lot of work and likely it's better maybe if cloudron staff makes a poll/analysis beforehand
-
