zfs send tank@snapshot | lz4 | openssl enc | par2 > file
Really, with stdin/stdout the sky is the limit, and there are minimal ties to any specific service since only the most generic raw cloud storage features are being used.
Careful. Openssl enc is basically a poor toy example, it's not a robust authenticated encryption tool for real world use.
It explicitly doesn't support modern AEAD ciphers or even a simple MAC (so the ciphertext can be silently tampered with - note anyone who can do that can also replace your par2 files), and it doesn't use a robust key derivation algorithm for password use (single-round of a hash, basically, default MD5 - about as weak as it comes).
hpenc looks like a nice high performance modern alternative: https://github.com/vstakhov/hpenc
That's the key and that's why it's here. It's a very, very stretched analogy, but from the very beginning, we at rsync.net have tried to run rsync.net itself as a unix primitive.
After already supporting actions like this, for years:
ssh email@example.com sha256 some/file
ssh firstname.lastname@example.org s3cmd get s3://rsync/mscdex.exe
mysqldump -u mysql db | ssh email@example.com"dd of=db_dump"
I'm looking for an EBS style mountable storage for digitalocean instances, since they don't scale up disk space to price very well.
Yes. Thousands of people do this, and it is in fact our recommended "browsing" recipe for OSX.
Feel free to email us to discuss this further - we would be very happy to extend the long-standing "HN discount" to you.
ExpanDrive @ http://www.expandrive.com enables a very fast/robust version of this use case.
The specific issues I had:
- You promised transparent client-side encryption in V5 . V5 is now here and encryption is nowhere to be found.
- You advertise a Linux beta yet when contacted about participation you haven't responded 
Just in case people see your plug and decide to purchase based on what they see in UserVoice.
As a reminder to folks reading this, email us about the long-standing "HN readers' discount".
Could someone from rsync.net explain why? Am I looking at rsync.net the wrong way? Is it meant to serve a different use case?
The front page of the website says "Cloud Storage for Offsite Backups" but the pricing shows that it costs 8-20c/month depending on usage. Meanwhile GCS Nearline and Amazon Glacier (also offsite backup products) are at 1c/GB and even their regular storage is at ~3c.
Sell me. What does rsync.net offer me that justifies an 8x-20x price bump?
First, glacier and nearline are not online storage. They are not random access datastores that you can interact with in real time with arbitrary applications. There's not a comparison to be made there.
I think the proper comparison is with Amazon S3 and I hope you'll allow me to approximate their pricing, on average, to 4-5 cents per GB, per month. The headline price for storage, of course, is ~3 cents, but you are charged for all outbound data as well as certain IO operations. I think 4-5 cents is a decent approximation.
If you're just walking in off the street and getting a small quantity of rsync.net storage, yes, it is 4-5x the price of S3 and you are paying that premium for UNIX-native storage and a phone number / email address that connects you to a real engineer (sometimes me, actually). Given that, at these smaller quantities, you're paying $10 or $20 per month, I think that's a very, very high value for the money.
If you're using larger amounts of storage, the pricing gets down to ~6 cents per GB (assuming annual discount) or even 3 cents per GB at petabyte levels. So at 10+ TB quantities we are just barely more expensive than S3 and at petabyte quantities we are decidedly cheaper.
As always, if you're a small end user, email us about the HN discount which is quite substantial.
 Actually, it's even more competitive relative to S3 since, by default, all accounts have 7 daily ZFS snapshots enabled and 1+ TB accounts have 7 daily + 4 weekly. Those typically add between 20-40% space usage on our end, but you don't pay for that ... on S3 you would indeed pay for that retention and you'd have to roll your own snapshot/retention script/logic. At rsync.net, Apple-style "time machine" snapshots are "just there".
How cheap Amazon is heavily depends on your retrieval needs. Glacier is basically for gigantic data vaults where you will never need to retrieve more than a small fraction of it. It's very cheap for that, but has retrieval fees if you need to retrieve >5% of your data at any given time, and they can be very high if you need to retrieve a significant amount of the data quickly (also, there's a 4-hour minimum retrieval latency, so you wouldn't want any possibly-needed-for-operations backups there). S3 allows your storage to be "online" full-time, but adds a $0.09/GB bandwidth charge for outgoing data, in addition to the $0.03/GB storage fee, so overall price depends heavily on what you're pulling out of it.
The $0.06/GB promotional offer in this rsync.net post actually seems surprisingly cheap, for always-online storage with no additional bandwidth fees. Even their normal prices seem pretty fair to me, for something that comes with full phone/email support, provides a regular POSIX filesystem with SSH access instead of a weird custom API, etc. If I were warehousing petabytes of never-to-be-needed data, the price difference over Glacier would be hard to ignore. But for a lot of needs it seems quite competitive to S3.
* ZFS send/receive does not support pause/resume
* SSH overhead may be overkill especially if the ZFS data is already encrypted
* Do you have any plans to solve these issues?
* Have you found them to be a problem in production?
* Do you support encrypted ZFS?
That's for Solaris only though. I wouldn't expected any other implementations to have on-the-fly encryption of that kind. So OpenSSH is unlikely to be adding overhead on that front.
So you can indeed encrypt your data "at rest" and you would indeed control your own keys. We recommend the 'duplicity' tool which works very well for encrypted offsite backups at rsync.net: