The client just sits for long stretches of time doing absolutely nothing, just like it used to (no disk activity, no CPU, no network activity). I've downloaded the latest client and I'm running it on OS X right now.
> If for some reason you would ever like to try SpiderOak again on me, you're welcome to contact me directly, or write to where these days we do a pretty good job of taking care of everyone.
#Spideroak support full
> If I've found the correct case, we did at least suspend billing when the issue started and eventually issued a full refund. > I think perhaps you might mean 2015 instead of 2016. Thanks a lot for the response, it's nice to hear from you and it sounds like you've done a lot to improve, just from the numbers. Otherwise I'm glad you've found backup solutions you're happy with. If for some reason you would ever like to try SpiderOak again on me, you're welcome to contact me directly, or write to where these days we do a pretty good job of taking care of everyone. SpiderOak keeps improving and the 2017 road map is action packed.
I'm not saying that these were necessarily the causes in your situation. Palo Alto firewalls classify traffic to SpiderOak as an online backup service and often block it outright or put it at least priority. We have seen ISPs deny or aggressively throttle connections to our destination networks. Troubleshooting an end-to-end encrypted product is hard because you can't just see everything that's happening by looking at the server. I'm sorry we weren't able to determine the cause of the slowness for you. If I've found the correct case, we did at least suspend billing when the issue started and eventually issued a full refund. At the time customer satisfaction ratings were around 84%, and we're in the high 90s now. I took over the company that year and some things have changed. Rclone and Syncany are both open source and support end to end encryption and a variety of storage backends.Īfter looking through our records, I think perhaps you might mean 2015 instead of 2016. If you want a service like theirs, I'd suggest rolling your own. I really love the idea of secure, private storage but SpiderOak's client is barely functional and their customer support is rather bad. There is an overhead limitation when the client encrypts, deduplicates, and compresses the files you are uploading"Īt this point I ran a basic test (cat /dev/urandom | gzip -c | openssl enc -aes-256-cbc -pass pass:spideroak | pv | shasum -a 256 > /dev/zero) that showed my laptop was easily capable of hashing and encrypting the data much faster than SpiderOak was handling it (Apr 30) after which I was simply ignored for a full month until I opened another ticket asking for a refund (Jul 9). Additional changes to storage network configuration will not improve the situation much.
What followed was nearly 6 months of "support", first claiming that it might be a server side issue and moving me "to a new host" (Feb 17) then when that didn't resolve my issue, they ignored me for a couple of months then handed me over to an engineer (Apr 28) who told me: "we may have your uploads running at the maximum speed we can offer you at the moment. I did some test uploads to other services (Google Drive, Amazon) to verify that things were fine with my connection (they were) and then contacted support (Feb 10). According to my Mac's activity monitor, SpiderOak was only uploading in short bursts of ~2MB/s. I had access to a symmetric gigabit fibre connection so I connected, set up the SpiderOak client and started uploading. Having several hundred gigabytes of photos to backup I took advantage and bought a year long subscription ($129). In February 2016, SpiderOak dropped its pricing to $12/month for 1TB of data. Their service is unreliable and slow, their client is horrible to work with and their support is disgraceful. I still won't trust SpiderOak with my data.
0 kommentar(er)
