I was going to say, if Google is silently losing and corrupting files then backing up from there is just duplicating the failure. But perhaps his backup scheme accounts for this unreliability.

That's why I'm wondering if they've tried. It may well be that the restore shows that even accounts that don't appear to be affected have lost files simply because very few people have an exact accounting of what it is that they've stored.

I have pretty much all of my stuff in a subversion repo and it serves both as backup and local copy checked out on multiple machines. The only exception is the business stuff (because it is shared with multiple people) and we use Google for that. But an inspection of Google take-out showed that it's nice to have the files but you won't be doing much with them outside of Google unless you download them one-by-one in a format that isn't tied to the Google cloud. And that is very tricky and time consuming.

Yes, probably once every 2-3 months. There’s a great interface for restoring specific files.

I keep the version history to infinite, so even if files are corrupted or lost on newer backups I can always reference the old ones, back to day 0. Backblaze is great for this as the storage price is negligible.

I think it works in a similar way to Tarsnap or something like Duplicati, but it’s a lot easier to manage and plugs in nicely to all of the Workspace account (not just Drive).

Thank you, that is great to hear.