That shouldn't be seen as Backblaze's problem. It's Dropbox's problem that they made their product too complicated for users to reason about. The original Dropbox concept was "a folder that syncs" and there would be nothing problematic about Backblaze or anything else trying to back it up like any other folder.

Today's Dropbox is a network file system with inscrutable cache behavior that seeks to hide from the users the information about which files are actually present. That makes it impossible for normal users to correctly reason about its behavior, to have correct expectations for what will be available offline or what the side effects of opening a file will be, and Backblaze is stuck trying to cope with a situation where there is no right answer.

▲

realo 4 hours ago | parent [-]

If I backup a file, I need to read that file. The rest is in the management layer underneath that file.

Seems simple enough to do for Backblaze, no?

▲

wtallis 3 hours ago | parent [-]

Do you really want Backblaze to ignore all the side effects of scanning through the entire contents a badly-designed network filesystem?

▲

realo 2 hours ago | parent [-]

What I actually want is not a backup. That is just an artefact of the process.

What i want is restores. The ability to restore anything from ideally any point back in time.

How that is achieved is not my concern.

Obviously Backblaze does not achieve that, today.

	▲	wtallis an hour ago \| parent [-]
		> How that is achieved is not my concern. You're dodging the question. Wanting to ignore the side effects does not mean they won't affect you.