Comments on: Jungle Disk for 2010

By: Stefan

Stefan — Mon, 29 Mar 2010 08:35:09 +0000

I’ve been using JD to backup my WHS for over 2 years now without any problems. I’m disappointed that the integrated WHS solution has been discontinued. If I do as @RF did above and switch to the desktop version, will it cause all of my data, over 110GB worth, to be sent back up to S3 again or will it be able to detect that the data is already backed up? I don’t want to incur the cost of network and S3 charges again for backing up the same data. If so, I’ll probably also go look at other online solutions.

By: Jason

Jason — Fri, 12 Mar 2010 22:33:42 +0000

Very disappointing that WHS is being killed after repeated posts over the previous year that a new product was in the works.

Looks like I will be ending my multi-year, multi-server business with Jungle Disk.

By: John

John — Thu, 11 Mar 2010 00:59:13 +0000

I just upgraded to JD 3.04 and wow, what a horrible icon. Why in gods name did you guys change it? I don’t really care about the application icon but now I have this horrible red and black swoosh thing on my desktop instead of a nice icon of a disk drive. I’m guessing some MBA idiot made you do it, but it really, really, really sucks.

By: just an user

just an user — Tue, 02 Mar 2010 22:09:05 +0000

I do like jungledisk but would like not to use S3 or rackspace but a server I do own in a colocation via ftp or what ever protocol is used. Would give me the best privacy and data protection with the best software being around.

By: Nik

Nik — Thu, 18 Feb 2010 00:05:00 +0000

I set my parents up with JD nearly three years ago, since it was the only real game in town for online backup. Since then, Mozy, Carbonite, SugarSync, Dropbox, Backblaze, etc. have come into the sync/share/backup realm. JungleDisk has some nice capabilities, but ultimately falls short because, if for no other reason, it’s more expensive, due largely to the subscription fee and the data transfer fees.

Backups has gone to all-you-can-eat for $5/month. Thanks to JD’s compression and AWESOME de-duplication, a gigabyte in JD is very different from a GB in another service. Still, 50 gigs of backup comes to $7.50 for storage plus $2/month, which puts it at right about DOUBLE the price of a Mozy/Carbonite/Backblaze/CrashPlan/need-I-go-on?

On the sync/store side, Dropbox/SugarSync/etc. have figured that 50 gigs is worth $10/month. In JD, we have our $7.50 for storage plus $3/month, which puts you a whopping half dollar more expensive. For that matter, it even ends up being roughly the same price as Apple’s over-priced Mobile Me iDisk service — which comes along with all the other .me goodies.

Neither of these include file transfer fees, which are modest, but do add up over time.

As long as JD tries to do all of these things, it needs to offer either something much better than the others (faster backups through de-duplication is DEFINITELY one such feature — online backups are sllllllooooowwwwww), it has to come along with a better $/gig ratio if a person takes advantage of all its features.

Sure, Amazon S3 is a pass-along, but maybe Cloud Files can add some economies of scale. Even if you make it a higher priced service but do, say, $250/year for all you can eat data for backup, sync, storage and sharing would be a real solid proposition.

By: archcommus

archcommus — Tue, 16 Feb 2010 05:39:30 +0000

Been a happy Jungle Disk user for 2 1/2 years now, once it moved to a 64-bit service, it really became the perfect online backup solution for me. Excited to see growth and a great vision for the product, but as others have stated, please be sure to maintain the high quality the software currently enjoys, and if it does end up being a sort of jack of all trades, do not let it become a master of none. Avoid bloat and stick to a clean UI with reliable features and you should continue to enjoy success.

By: Nigel

Nigel — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 14:48:44 +0000

I am still really unhappy that command line support has been removed from v3.x.

Please could it be put back into the product,, can’t use JD because of that with my setup. If v3.x is an improvement why have features been removed?

By: Sean

Sean — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 07:45:53 +0000

Scott, please don’t add bloat to JD. One of the reasons I like it is because it’s low on resource usage.

By: Scott Gibson

Scott Gibson — Mon, 15 Feb 2010 01:54:40 +0000

@Tom We are indeed planning to have a service for seeding and restoring data. Stay tuned to the blog for updates on that topic.

By: Tim B

Tim B — Sun, 14 Feb 2010 23:11:39 +0000

Have been and continue to wait for ReadyNAS support however Scott’s comment on 2/12 is a bit ominous. I love JD because it is a single purpose tool and does that very well please do not turn it into a swiss army knife where too many trade offs are made.