I don't like it either. Foremost, I feel that it fails to appreciate some of Mozy's most loyal customers. Second, and somewhat less prominent, it means that your Mozy experience gets fragmented by requiring two separate log ins in the mobile app to see your two separate sets of data.
That said, I was faced with a hard choice in launching Stash. There are some serious technical complications for adding a limited-capacity Stash to an unlimited capacity account. Somewhat less complicated, the Stash software's UI has some calculation issues when dealing with "unlimited." We're still looking for a way to provide Stash to Unlimited customers, but we didn't want to hold up the launch.
Stash currently does not have a hard limit on the number of computers you can link to your Stash.
After linking your 5th computer, the Stash software will raise a warning whenever you link another computer, stating that after the beta you will be limited to 5 computers.
Truth be told, the limit might end up being higher than 5, but that's the working number for now. (It does not count mobile devices, such as smartphones and iPads.)
Last thing: you do not have to run backup on a computer linked to your Stash.
Regarding the issue of unlimited Mozy users not being able to take full advantage of Stash, I'm one of the loyal users you refer to. In fact my unlimited account doesn't expire for another year, so would like to see some kind of resolution before then! I'd be quite happy to move to a standard 50GB account now (without my charging date changing) as I'm only backing up about 40GB at the moment. Could that be a viable option?
It could be, Richard. But I'd prefer to allow you to finish your Unlimited term and still use Stash.
I'm doing some tests today, and things are going fairly well. I'll be back with more information soon.
I've been using Mozy for several years and trying out Sugar Sync to fill the gaps left by Mozy. With Stash it looks like I may be able to get my data protection/sync needs in one package, which would be great. Right now, I see two primary disadvantages to moving to Slash:
1) I gather that it needs some extra logic (that I believe is forthcoming) to weed out irrelevant images on your phone.
- should be non-issue "in the near future."
2) It looks like it's going to follow the Drop Box/SS model of "Magic Box" (or whatever it's called), instead of allowing the user to maintain his/er current file hierarchy.
Requiring me to essentially throw a bunch of files in a virtual pile seems crazy to me. Doesn't everyone have a nice file system set up on their phone and computers? This paradigm seems like going into my file cabinet and taking a few files from here and there and just throwing them in a bin on my desk, then saying "here ya go!" If you need to stick to that model due to some technical reason, well I guess that makes some sense, but can we at least be allowed to keep the files in their current location and just have list of shortcuts/files names/symlinks/ (whatever) so the existing file structure is maintained? I don't agree with the claim this this is for simplification -- I would argue that it make a huge mess of one's existing file structure. Sure if you're a kid and don't care that all of your pics are in a pile so long as they're safe, maybe. But wouldn't think your primary install base operates like that.
BTW, as you probably know, SS doesn't allow individual file selection or exclusion as Mozy does. That gives Mozy a huge advantage as one doesn't need to waste time and data usage backing up needless files within a folder. If it wasn't for that!... Their ability to send an email link (plugin to Outlook) to your file in the cloud is also a excellent addtion as well. Is there an easy way to do this on your side?
Thanks for taking the time to provide such extensive feedback.
As you noted, the auto-uploader for photos is indeed scheduled for a fix coming up.
As far as maintaining your current folder hierarchy, we plan to provide better support for symlinks in the future. You can already use inbound symlinks today. (By "inbound," I mean that the link would exist outside of the Stash folder and point to a resource within it.) That allows you to keep the same functional hierarchy on your computer while storing everything in your Stash. We donn't yet support outbound symlinks (where the filesystem resource exists outside of the Stash folder, and the link pointing to the resource exists in your Stash folder). I'm currently studying how we would make this work with backup, but it is on our to-do list.
Thanks Ted for the reply. Sounds like it could be good news
I did some research regarding your response on symlinks but didn't find any direct reference/instruction in the forum or the Stash documentation. You say you currently support inbound symlinks. My understanding (guess) is that the files would need to be moved to the Stash folder and a symlink (Windows shortcut?) would be left back at the original location. In this case, does that mean the process would be:
1) MOVE a file/folder to the Stash folder
2) make a SHORTCUT (WinXP) and place it back into the original location (or make the shortcut first, I guess)
3) goto #1 for each file/folder to sync (many times!)
Is this correct, and/or is there a more efficient way?
I hope you come up with a clean solution for outbound linking. I think that would be a significant competive edge.
You've got the concept down correctly. However, don't use a Windows shortcut. They're not the same thing. Instead, use a symlink using the mklink command to make the inbound link.
You're correct that you first move the folder into your Stash, and then create the link where the folder used to be, using the same name for the link as the moved folder.
Outbound linking presents some challenges. First, if you have backup protecting the external folder, then you could end up protecting it twice: once with Stash and once with Backup. That would cause it to count twice against your total used storage. So that's one issue we have to consider. Another is what other computers should do with file resources from that the outbound link refers to on the original machine. Re-creating the link on the other computers would not be practical. I'm still working through how we should handle this. For now, I really favor inbound links for their simplicity.
Stay tuned...there's more coming on this over the coming weeks,
I'd love to see Mozy Backup + Stash for Linux! It would be really cool to have Portable Stash on the portableapps.com platform.
Hello Ted - Wanted to ask if you had an update regarding photos?
Reviewing the post below, you stated "the auto-uploader for photos is indeed scheduled for a fix coming up."
That comment was on Feb 6th. I haven't located any new information on this issue. Wouldyou please review and let me know.
Appreciate your help!
Kenneth Queen, dedicated member since August, 2006!