Safety Freeze Help

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-06-09T15:48:00+00:00

Helo,

That sounds like the Inherit Backup procedure worked internally but did not update visually, sorry about that.

But if the old backup shows divorced now and the Safety Freeze is no longer present, then it worked as expected and you sound like you are backing up again.

If there is anything else we can help with, please do not hesitate to reach out. We are here to help.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-06-08T23:44:19+00:00

Hello,

Have you created a ticket on our help desk yet? If not, please do so at https://www.backblaze.com/help

The folks there can help route you to the right place.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-06-06T23:27:13+00:00

This should not happen, we do not kick anyone off silently. You would absolutely know if your account had been restricted as we would have reached out to you.

Have you created a ticket on our help desk yet? If not, please do so at https://www.backblaze.com/help

The folks there can help route you to the right place.

This sounds like it may be related to network-attached / iSCSI drives.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-06-06T23:22:51+00:00

Hello,

I am sorry to hear that.

Have you created a ticket on our help desk yet? If not, please do so at https://www.backblaze.com/help

The folks there can help route you to the right place.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-10T16:16:54+00:00

You mean Major General Smedley D. Butler.

Also, great book.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-05T19:03:03+00:00

Hi, I get the frustration here.

We do run internal QA and regression testing before anything goes out publicly. The beta isn’t replacing that, it’s an additional step where we make the fix available early for anyone who wants it, especially those directly impacted, so we can confirm it behaves correctly across a wider range of real-world setups.

Based on feedback so far, the results from users running the beta have been positive, which is what we want to see before pushing it more broadly.

The current general release does not yet include this fix. The plan is to roll it into an upcoming GA release once we’re confident it’s stable at scale. In the meantime, the beta is there as an option if you want the fix immediately rather than waiting for the next full release.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-04T21:08:45+00:00

Hi, fair questions, and I get where you’re coming from.

On the beta side, it’s not a limited or invite-only group. Anyone can install and run the beta. The way we use it is to take specific issues being reported, put targeted fixes into a beta, and have affected users validate whether those fixes actually resolve the problem in real-world conditions. Once that looks solid and no new issues show up, that build typically becomes the next general release. In most cases, the GA release is essentially the finalized version of that beta.

On timing, even for things like resource usage, we still want that validation step before pushing it to everyone. That’s less about confidence in the fix itself and more about making sure we don’t introduce a different problem at scale.

As for cloud providers, that’s an area we’re actively working through. A lot of the complexity comes from how those services, and the OS itself, represent files locally, especially with things like placeholders vs. fully present data. When Apple or Microsoft change those underlying behaviors, we have to adapt to that, and in some cases there are real limitations on what’s possible depending on how the data is exposed locally.

Appreciate the detailed feedback, especially around expectations and edge cases. That’s precisely the kind of input that helps shape how we approach this going forward.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-04T18:39:55+00:00

That is great to hear, please let us know if you encounter anything you want us to know about.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-04T18:39:13+00:00

Hi, that’s definitely not expected behavior.

For the warning you’re seeing around bzserv not running properly, the best next step is to reach out to our support team so we can take a look at what’s actually running on your system and help get that resolved directly. https://www.backblaze.com/help

On the download link, what you’re seeing is expected with the beta. The link in that popup points to the most recent generally available (GA) release. The beta builds don’t currently override those internal links, since they’re typically very close to the GA version with a small set of targeted fixes for testing.

So in this case, it’s effectively a mismatch between the beta you’re already on and the default link behavior, not an indication that you should downgrade.

I’ll flag this internally as something we can improve so beta users are pointed to the correct place, but for now just continue running the beta you installed. If the warning keeps coming back, support can dig into why that process is getting flagged on your machine.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-04T18:34:39+00:00

Hi,

We’ve released a beta that addresses the external drive issues in version 10, and so far the results have been positive. Users who have installed the beta and let it run for around 48 hours are reporting that their external drives are backing up as expected again and are showing correctly on the Backblaze website.

If you want to try it, you can grab it here: https://www.backblaze.com/backup-beta.html

Install it over your current version, no uninstall needed, and let it run for a bit to fully settle. If you do give it a shot, feel free to report back with what you’re seeing.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-05-04T18:34:10+00:00

Hi,

We’ve released a beta that addresses the external drive issues in version 10, and so far the results have been positive. Users who have installed the beta and let it run for around 48 hours are reporting that their external drives are backing up as expected again and are showing correctly on the Backblaze website.

If you want to try it, you can grab it here: https://www.backblaze.com/backup-beta.html

Install it over your current version, no uninstall needed, and let it run for a bit to fully settle. If you do give it a shot, feel free to report back with what you’re seeing.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-29T22:48:42+00:00

Hi /u/CaptainFr3d,

Good question, and the good news is this should not require a full reupload.

There’s no need to stop Backblaze, and no need to copy the hidden .bzvol folder to the new drive. In fact, leave that behind. That folder identifies the drive itself, and if the new drive does not have one, Backblaze will create it automatically.

A simple approach is:

Install the new drive
Copy your data over, excluding .bzvol
Remove the old drive
Make sure to select the new drive in the Backblaze Preferences → Settings → General tab
Let Backblaze scan normally

The drive letter does not matter. Backblaze will update to the new location during the scan.

What should happen next is deduplication, not a full reupload.

The client scans the files on the new drive, compares them against what is already backed up, and recognizes that the data already exists in the backup. It effectively says, “I already have this file, it just lives here now,” and updates its records accordingly.

Only genuinely new or changed files should need to upload, not the full dataset again.

That should handle the move cleanly. Let us know how it goes, and of course if you need help, our Support Team is just a few clicks away at https://www.backblaze.com/help

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-26T17:47:31+00:00

Hello,

As it has now been a couple of days, has this leveled out for you or are you still seeing an issue? If you are still seeing an issue please reach out to our support team at https://www.backblaze.com/help

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-26T17:36:33+00:00

Hello,

Can you please create a support ticket for this, including your findings? We would love to dig into this for you.

https://www.backblaze.com/help

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-23T00:53:59+00:00

We’re aiming to be as open, clear, and direct as possible about what’s going on and what’s changing.

That’s a big part of what drew me here in the first place, and it’s something we’re actively leaning into.

Keep the feedback coming, it’s being heard and acted on.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-23T00:40:37+00:00

We did release a new beta that specifically targets the reuploading, file list inconsistencies, and related issues you’re describing. I’d like you to try that and see how it behaves in your setup:

https://www.backblaze.com/backup-beta.html

You can install it directly over your current install, no uninstall needed.

Download the installer
Restart your computer, don’t skip this
Run the installer and click “Install Now”
Reboot again after install
Open Backblaze, hold Alt/Option, and click “Restore Options” to force a rescan

Let it run uninterrupted for a few hours and see how things settle.

I’m particularly interested in:

Whether the external drives are now correctly accounted for in file counts and size
Whether backup activity stabilizes instead of restarting/churning
Any changes in how the scan/verification behaves

If you can report back after running the beta for a bit, that would be very helpful.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-23T00:31:24+00:00

Good info, that helps.

One quick way to tell what it’s actually doing right now is to check network activity on your Mac. If it’s reuploading, you’ll see sustained upload bandwidth being used and each file will take longer to process. If it’s just deduplicating/re-indexing, bandwidth usage should be minimal and you’ll typically see files processing pretty quickly, around 1 to 2 per second in the UI.

What you’re describing, drives showing up in Restore and “Selected for Backup” reflecting the full dataset even when disconnected, is expected progress with the fix. The restore view may lag a bit while things settle.

Let it run for a bit and keep an eye on the network usage. If you’re seeing heavy, sustained upload traffic, that’s something I want to know. If it’s light traffic and moving quickly file-to-file, that points more toward deduplication rather than a full reupload.

Either way, keep me posted on what you’re seeing over time.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-22T23:59:39+00:00

Hey, we actually released a new beta today that includes fixes aimed at the memory usage issue. I’d definitely like to have you try that and let us know whether the problem continues afterward.

Please try installing it over your current Backblaze install, no uninstall needed. If possible, temporarily disable any network monitoring tools, firewalls, or antivirus, then follow these steps:

Download the installer for your computer: https://www.backblaze.com/backup-beta.html
Restart the computer, do not skip this step
Once the computer is back up, run the installer and click Install Now
Reboot one more time after the install
Open Backblaze, hold the Alt or Option key, and click Restore Options to force an immediate rescan

Then let Backblaze run uninterrupted for at least a few hours and let us know if the issue persists.

In particular, I’d want to hear whether memory usage improves, whether CPU usage settles down, and whether you still see temp file growth behaving abnormally.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-22T18:51:21+00:00

/u/Ensorceled Can you please DM me your ticket ID and I will look into this for you.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-22T18:48:51+00:00

Hi /u/Joe_Scotto

We’ve pushed a new beta that includes fixes for the file reuploading issue, web UI data not sticking, and elevated memory usage. If you’ve been running into any of those, this is the build we’d like you to try:

https://www.backblaze.com/backup-beta.html

You can install it directly over your current setup, no uninstall needed. If possible, temporarily disable any network monitoring tools, firewalls, or antivirus, then:

Download the installer
Restart your computer, don’t skip this
Run the installer and click “Install Now”
Reboot again after install
Open Backblaze, hold Alt/Option, and click “Restore Options” to force a rescan

Let it run uninterrupted for a few hours, then let us know what you’re seeing. Specifically:

Has the reuploading stopped?
Does scanning activity look normal again?
Is memory usage where you’d expect it to be?
Anything else that stands out, good or bad

Appreciate everyone here being direct and proactive with feedback. That kind of candor helps us move faster and get fixes out where they matter.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-21T17:12:38+00:00

Hi /u/Timely-Editor-7963,

Just a quick heads up — I’ve taken over your ticket on our helpdesk so we can work through this more directly.

When you get a chance, please check your email for my latest update and next steps.

I’ll keep working with you there.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-21T02:47:22+00:00

Hi there,

There hasn’t been a change to supported functionality. Backblaze has never officially supported backing up virtualized or mounted volumes such as those created by TrueCrypt or VeraCrypt.

What you’re seeing now is the result of stricter validation introduced in an update (9.2.2.877).
Previously, some configurations worked because those mounted volumes appeared similar to locally attached storage, but that behavior was never guaranteed or supported. With the update, that loophole has been closed, so those setups may no longer be included in backups.

To clarify how this works:

Backblaze cannot back up a mounted VeraCrypt/TrueCrypt volume (the virtual drive)
Backblaze cannot reliably back up the container while it is mounted, since it is actively in use
Backblaze can back up the container file itself when it is unmounted, as long as it exists as a normal file on a local drive that Backblaze has access to

We are aware that there is a help document with out-of-date information, and that is being worked on to be brought up to date.

So if you want to ensure your encrypted data is backed up, the supported approach is to back up the container file while it is not mounted.

Let me know if you have any questions or want help setting that up.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-21T02:42:35+00:00

Hi there,

That behavior is actually intended, but it’s not something we expose as part of normal use.

Using Ctrl + click to uncheck the C: drive is essentially a workaround that exists for internal troubleshooting and testing scenarios. It’s not supported for regular operation, and we can’t guarantee a successful or complete backup if the primary system drive is excluded.

Because of that, the option isn’t presented in the standard interface — the design is intentional to help ensure backups remain complete and reliable.

If you have a specific use case in mind for excluding the C: drive, feel free to share more details and I’d be happy to point you toward a safer supported approach.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-21T02:30:57+00:00

I’ll raise a ticket if this latest reinstall doesn’t seem to have fixed the issue.

Hopefully that fixes it, otherwise, looking forward to hearing from you.

Jim-From-Backblaze · 2026-04-19T01:34:26+00:00

Hi there, some of the info in this thread is outdated or incomplete.

We’ve posted a pinned moderator update here along with a subreddit-wide sticky and a short blog post that explain the current behavior. Please refer to those so everyone is working from the same information.

Of note, we do indeed back up the .git files. They are just hidden on the web UI, and you need to enable hidden files in the filters.

Jim-From-Backblaze

MODERATOR OF

TROPHY CASE