Print

Print


Hi Corey-

...if there is data compression at all on a server you are uploading to, then it is probably lz4 or something, at the filesystem level. This is both free from a performance perspective and lossless from a data-integrity perspective, provided your host is using an enterprise-grade filesystem like ZFS. Which it's practically guaranteed that they are, in 2019. If you want to be extra paranoid, you can, before uploading, generated parity files using something like QuickPar or similar, and then back those up, but this is not necessary, at least not for the purpose of making sure your providers aren't messing with your files somehow, because this isn't happening. Think about it. If it were, there would be no point of e.g. uploading a hash along with a file, if it turns out the file you've uploaded is modified upon upload thanks to the compression you seem to be afraid of, then that hash'd fail every time. IRL this doesn't happen. Now, if you're using a service that explicitly uses lossy compression (e.g. if you give it wav/flac, it converts to mp3/mp4/ogg/opus; if you give it a tiff/png, it converts to jpg/heic, etc)...well it's told you that in advance, and anyway such a service would not be appropriate for this use case. But it seemed like you were making a broader claim than that here, particularly in your last email.

Laurent--
I don't think what you're looking for--basically, archive.org, but with access control--exists. And if it did, no way it would be free, unless ad-supported, which is kind of icky for your use case. You could try using a web portal that'll have all your metadata etc that linked to files hosted on other service, but this is, obviously, inelegant, and not all that different from what you're doing--just more pleasant to navigate than a directory at Mega. It also wouldn't really solve your access control issue--you could restrict who can see the links to the copyrighted material like this, but the links themselves wouldn't be temporary, so you That said, it'd probably be cheaper than paying out your nose to host all your files, though. Sorry nothing better is occurring to me right now, but looking fwd to other responses--hope you find what you're looking for.

Eli B

October 7, 2019 12:56 AM, "Corey Bailey" <[log in to unmask] (mailto:[log in to unmask]<[log in to unmask]>)> wrote:
	Hi Richard, Yes, that was a sweeping statement, meant to raise the awareness of those who use the internet (Cloud) which, includes the vast majority of us and our offspring. The fact is that most, if not all, who rent server space use some kind of data compression to save space (and $). Most will not tell what they use. You can buy data compression/encryption software that will return bit-for-bit. Some are OK with the concept, some are not. One possibility is to use a code (There are many variants) in the metadata of the files you plan to store to insure that you get the same files back. Here is another sweeping statement: I try and avoid those that do data tracking. ALL OF THEM (can you say VPN?) and, I plan to disengage completely from all social media by the first of the year because of data tracking regardless of your settings (preferences). I do however, use Dropbox. At least, temporarily. I plan to dump them as soon as my paid service runs out due to slow upload speeds. I have a 70Mbps service but Dropbox is very slow to upload, about a third, or less, of what I have available (Can you say /throttling/?). I don't use Backblaze because I clone my boot drives instead of doing backups. Apologies to the list for being way off topic. Da Ole' curmudgeon, Corey Corey Bailey Audio Engineering www.baileyzone.net On 10/6/2019 11:24 AM, Richard L. Hess wrote: Hi, Corey,

That is a sweeping statement that I think needs clarification.

My take on this statement is:

Google Photos: True if you select the unlimited option, not true if > you pay for the storage.

Dropbox: The only compression that they use is perhaps totally > transparent data compression on the server side (I have no evidence of > that) but they deliver files back to you as you sent them. While > originally running on Amazon Web Services, they have migrated to their > own multi-location cloud.

Backblaze: Although not a cloud service per se, but rather a backup > service, I believe they do de-dupe your files and only save one copy, > but otherwise they give you back what you sent in (again, they may use > sever side lossless data compression).

Amazon Web Services/Glacier/etc: These services give you back what you > put in.

There are many others, but these are some I've looked into over the > past few years. At the moment, I use the first three and had long had > a thought about using AWS/Glacier.

I don't know a good solution that meets the OPs requirements except > perhaps splitting items between a service which allows passwords (paid > service) and the Internet Archive for the free-access stuff.

Cheers,

Richard

On 2019-10-06 1:44 p.m., Corey Bailey wrote:Hi Laurent,

Know that almost all on line storage uses some kind of data >> compression. Besides your password requirement, you need to consider >> which type of data compression will best suit the needs of your >> material.

Best,

Corey

Corey Bailey Audio Engineering
www.baileyzone.net