AWS Backup Reviews

The use case for AWS Backup is the same as Azure. The only difference is the customer's choice and preference.

AWS Backup is primarily meant for customers with workloads on AWS or using cloud-native applications. This is the most common use case, accounting for about 70% of users.

It is also a good solution for customers with a hybrid on-premises environment and highly scalable data. Traditional storage solutions, such as Spectrum Protect, can be difficult to scale down dynamically. With AWS Backup, customers pay as per their consumption, so they only pay for what they use.

Another advantage of AWS Backup is that customers can choose the storage tiering for their data. They can store different types of data for different lengths, depending on how often it is accessed and how quickly it needs to be retrieved. This can help customers to save money on their storage costs.

AWS is scalable and low-cost with easy configuration.

Hybrid cloud capabilities could be improved.

AWS does have solutions, but it's probably not the best when you have both on-premise data center and Cloud. Unless you bring in AWS Outpost or other AWS solutions, configuring or leveraging AWS backup is not easy. If it's completely Cloud, then it's great. If you've Cloud and on-prem. Then, you have to bring in another AWS product or utility to leverage backup from your on-premise data center.

I have been using AWS Backup for five years.

The product is the most stable across all other cloud providers.

The solution’s scalability is good. We mainly deal with the medium scale with a few enterprise-grade customers.

We deal with enterprise clients, so we need to provide enterprise-grade support. We've to go above and beyond what is defined in our contracts and terms and conditions. AWS is good at delivering on its contractual obligations, but we must constantly exceed their expectations to work with enterprise clients. Within the bounds of our contracts, AWS is excellent.

The customer support is reasonably good.

Positive

AWS Backup is a great solution for AWS-hosted applications. It is easy to configure and manage if you know about backup policies. Using AWS Backup to back up non-AWS applications can be more cumbersome.

If you are hosted on AWS, use AWS Backup. If you are hosted on Azure, use Azure Backup. Cross-platform and cross-cloud backup solutions are not good.

If you have policies, deployment takes a few minutes. The important thing is to establish your backup policy, as defined by the application. The technical work does not take more than a few minutes.

The solution’s pricing is competitive. AWS is being used more by SME industries rather than enterprises.

I've exclusively worked with your cloud-native solutions, including AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. These are all cloud-native backups and services. Before 2017-2018, I was primarily in your data center space, where we used Spectrum Protect and IBM SAN.

We have a partnership with AWS. We provide managed services for our clients. We expect the customer to have already procured the product and to have a relationship with the vendor. We are a certified MSP for AWS, Azure, and Google.

The solution is a fully managed service. You have to monitor whether the backups are running regularly or not. There are monitoring solutions provided by the AWS. The maintenance is relatively easy and good.

If you are using AWS applications, use AWS Backup. It does not make sense to use a different backup solution on AWS. You can monitor the storage tiering behind your backups, significantly impacting your costs.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I primarily use AWS Backup for backing up RDS and Postgres databases on Amazon RDS. Additionally, I use it for DynamoDB, DocumentDB, and S3 data stores.

What I like about AWS Backup is its simple approach to a complex problem. The ability to set up backups using simple tagging and apply different backup plans and rules based on our needs is valuable. For example, we can set different retention periods for various databases, depending on customer requirements. This tagging and rule-setting feature saves us a lot of time in managing our backups effectively.

One improvement I would like to see in AWS Backup is the implementation of incremental backups, especially for databases like MongoDB. Currently, full snapshots are taken each time, which can be costly for large databases. Incremental backups would help reduce these costs. This is a key requirement for us, and we have already communicated it to AWS support teams. If this isn't addressed, we may need to explore alternative backup solutions, despite the current limitations.

I have been working with AWS Backup for four years.

We haven't had any stability issues with AWS Backup.

AWS Backup is scalable and meets our needs well. We use it in our production environment, where we have around three hundred databases configured, and it handles the workload effectively. We have more than 200 services using AWS Backup.

The technical support for AWS Backup is generally fine. We haven't needed it much due to our experience with the product. Any issues we have faced are more about product features needing improvement rather than support quality.

The initial setup process for AWS Backup was straightforward for us. We used Terraform for deployment without encountering any significant issues. While there are options like AWS Organizations for deploying across multiple accounts, we currently manage around forty environments, which is manageable without additional configurations.

Deploying AWS Backup is relatively straightforward, but ensuring it meets our requirements took about two to three months initially, and less time for subsequent deployments as we became more familiar. It's a complex task to ensure it works across all environments. However, I managed the deployment with minimal resources, mainly myself, with some assistance. AWS Backup is a managed service, so installation wasn't required, only configuration. Maintenance is covered by AWS.

The price of AWS Backup, at about ten cents per gigabyte, could be lower, but it is clear and predictable. We understand our monthly costs and can adjust retention periods accordingly. Calculating the return on investment for AWS Backup is a bit tricky, but overall, it provides value for the money spent.

We use AWS Backup for disaster recovery planning by backing up AWS databases and restoring them as needed. We can perform point-in-time recovery within one region and copy snapshots to another region, such as from Ireland to Frankfurt, to ensure recovery in case of a region outage.

We integrate AWS Backup with other AWS services like RDS using simple tagging. By tagging database instances with a backup plan name, AWS Backup automatically sets up the backup process. It is straightforward and works with various types of data stores.

We are exploring automation capabilities, particularly in automating our restore process for disaster recovery. Our goal is to move beyond occasional manual disaster recovery exercises and establish automated backups and restores, possibly leveraging tools like GitHub Actions for testing. Ensuring that our backups can be reliably restored is crucial, and automation plays a significant role in achieving that.

When it comes to the restore process in AWS Backup, the main issue is the need to specify each database individually for restoration. It would be beneficial to have the ability to restore groups of databases or services together, simplifying the process and saving time. Currently, this feature is not available in AWS Backup, but it would be a valuable improvement for users like me.

I would recommend AWS Backup to other users. It is reliable and effective, and we are satisfied with its value. While additional functionality would be nice, we are happy with it as it is.

Overall, I would rate AWS Backup as an eight out of ten.

We only use the product for backups. We propose it to some clients. 

We like that it is a cloud-native backup solution. Native tools are seamless and less effort is needed when using them.  It is easy to configure. The product itself is user-friendly.

It works well as a backup and as a service. It's not cumbersome at all. 

We're not really looking into areas of improvement right now. We do deployments and migrations and hand them over to the client. It's the client's responsibility to manage everything after that. 

It could be less expensive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. It's robust and very resilient. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

This is a scalable solution. It's easy to expand. 

We've implemented this solution for three or four clients so far.

We don't deal with or offer technical support. I don't have any insights into how well technical support functions. 

We do work with a variety of solutions and advise our clients in terms of what would work best for them.

The solution differs from case to case, project to project. We'll propose and install this solution if the client is looking for some sort of cloud-native offering. 

It's pretty straightforward for us. There is some standard documentation you can reference, which is provided. With the appropriate execution, everything goes smoothly. 

We do the configuration as well and find it pretty easy.

How long it takes to deploy depends on the knowledge level of the resource. When we set it up so that it is like a template that can be replicated, and things can be automated using scripts. The initial implementation takes a bit more time since you are doing everything from scratch. 

We work with multiple clients and do architecting, migrating, designing, and implementing solutions such as this. 

The pricing varies according to a company's goals and requirements. If a company can agree to long-term use, they likely can arrange a discount. 

I'd rate the general cost seven out of ten in terms of affordability. 

Whether we recommend this solution depends on the client's requirements. It is efficient, robust, cost-effective, and resilient. In general, it is something I would tell potential users to look at.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We deal with confidential client information and use AWS Backup for our KYC solution. We capture the identity details of the end customer and ensure they are securely backed up.

AWS is easy to use. I mean, in the sense that if we typically go for a backup solution, obviously, the advantages the cloud brings and, you know, we don't really have actually to do the installation ourselves. I don't need to look at the server and the uptime of the server. That's one. 

Second, most of these services are based on API calls. So a couple of API calls, and we are done. So we don't need to really look at scaling and the throughput aspects of it. That's something that AWS automatically takes care of.

The auto-scaling feature and the time efficiency of setting up AWS Backup are the most valuable aspects for us. It is a time-efficient solution. 

When it comes to encrypting data, it is not so convenient. When it comes to regular data backup, AWS Backup is pretty efficient. But when encryption is involved, there are two options: either encrypt the entire dataset or keep it completely unencrypted. 

However, in real-life scenarios, partial encryption is often desired. For example, I might want 80% of the data to be in plain text, while 20% needs to be masked or encrypted. So, in terms of backup and recovery, I believe there is still room for improvement in providing a solution that addresses this need in the market.

There is one particular feature I would greatly appreciate. It relates to data encryption. It would be beneficial to have specific data encryption options available for the entire dataset that we intend to encrypt.

We have been using AWS Backup for the past nine months.

I would rate the stability of this solution a nine out of ten. It has been highly stable for us.

I would rate the scalability of AWS Backup an eight out of ten. It offers good scalability.

Within our organization, there are only a few projects using AWS Backup. So the number of users should be less than ten. The users mainly consist of solution developers and technical personnel. 

It is used about once a month, so the frequency is pretty less. The backup frequency will remain once a month, but the data volume will continue to grow.

It is easy to set up. I would rate my experience with the initial setup a ten out of ten, where ten is very easy. It took us about one day to deploy AWS Backup.

I don't think any maintenance is required except for managing the data volume and its growth. So there's no need for regular maintenance tasks.

We were able to do the deployment in-house. We could do it on our own. It only requires one AWS cloud resource to handle the deployment. We don't need additional personnel.

The deployment process is straightforward. We just bring the service up, and it starts running. We make use of the API key.

I would rate the pricing a six out of ten, where one represents a low price and ten represents a high price. The pricing is decent.

We mainly relied on manual backup processes.

I would advise them to consider the data volume and their specific requirements, particularly if they have SLAs (Service Level Agreements) to meet. Backup is closely tied to those SLAs, so it's important to assess how much data needs to be backed up and how much should be stored in real-time databases based on the SLA's constraints.

Overall, I would rate it an eight out of ten. It's a user-friendly and scalable product, which makes it quite efficient.

AWS is the primary platform that we use for our internal needs and we are trying to best use whatever comes with it. So far, we are happy with AWS and we have 30% or 40% of our workflows implemented there. For example, we are very big SAP users and we use SAP HANA on AWS. In the future, we expected almost everything to be in AWS, with perhaps 10% of our work in Azure.

We use the AWS Backup as a service to perform native backups and recovery of files and other data. It is also our disaster recovery solution.

The most valuable feature is its ease of use.

One of the limitations of AWS Backup is that it only does file-based copying. It is not as good as some of the external products for handling things like the Oracle Database backups. For example, it lacks the ability to do database backups and differential backups. It is doesn't keep a schedule, and it doesn't keep full track of success and failure. Overall, the functionality is pretty limited, although it does meet our requirements. For places that have deeper requirements, they use different software to do their backups.

In the future, I would like AWS Backup to be more robust and be able to handle database-level backups. It should support Oracle, MySQL, and other types of databases.

Better integration with standard backup management tools that provide control, such as the ability to schedule backups, would be an improvement.

We are been using AWS Backup for more than two years.

This is a stable solution.

AWS Backup is scalable. It is used to back up environments and not really for end-users. In our internal IT departments, we have probably 50 people using it.

We have reached out to AWS support and our technical architecture manager has a relationship with them. We provide constant feedback with respect to how the product is and what improvements need to be done. The developers are aware and they try to improve the features, but it's a slow process.

The initial setup is very simple. There is not much to it. We just need to run some primitive scripts.

The suitability of this solution for backup and recovery depends on the requirements. I would only recommend it for organizations that need a very simple solution.

There is a lot of work that they need to do in the backup space because, at this time, it only does very basic backups. They don't appear to be prioritizing the building of a robust backup solution. It seems that they are more interested in having us work with another vendor, rather than them creating something that is already available.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We use the product to schedule data backup, restoration, and encryption. It helps with real-time data recovery.

AWS Backup provides easy backup/restore solution for our Cloud resources with a low to zero failure rate compared to other solutions.

It is a complete backup solution. It is sufficient for our use cases.

There could be a centralized dashboard with a reporting feature notifying us of daily backup status.

We have been using AWS Backup for five years.

The platform is stable. Once it is set up, I never have to look back at it. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I am extremely satisfied with AWS Backup's scalability and rate it a ten. I don't see any performance degradation during backups.

The technical support services are quite excellent, depending on specific licensing plans.

Positive

We use Commvault for on-premise infrastructure and AWS backup for cloud environments. In comparison, Commvault is more complicated to use than AWS.

The initial setup includes adding a tag to the managed resource. It includes backup plans specifying the frequency. The process is pretty straightforward.

It requires a few hours to complete. One executive is enough to manage the cloud servers. However, it needs more than one executive to extend it to on-premises.

The product is inexpensive. It costs nothing apart from the storage.

I rate AWS Backup an eight out of ten. It meets all the international governance compliance. It is easier to use and set up. It doesn't require any maintenance. It provides an easy data migration process from on-premise to cloud. I strongly recommend AWS Backup over other products.

We are a solution provider and we use AWS Backup for our customers' companies.

We typically install this product on-premises, although it is easy to extend as a center in the cloud. Many our of customers are multi-cloud, using cloud provides such as Azure, AWS, and Google.

We are able to set up a continuous backup from our customers' on-premise hardware to the cloud.

The most valuable feature is the snapshot capability, where we backup applications to a secondary site.

The restore functionality is an area that needs to be improved because right now, it is not very good. It requires a lot of time to connect the snapshot, identify the files, and restore a single file manually. 

In general, I would like to better manage the granular restoration of files. This is true both in a Linux environment, as well as Windows. A lot of our clients are using Linux for their application servers.

We want to be able to restore either single files or multiple files from one volume. Today, it is very complex because it requires us to restore the full image of the volume. Only after that, can we extract a single file. Ideally, we should be able to extract a single file from a snapshot.

We have been working with AWS Backup for between five and six years.

This is a stable product.

This is a scalable product and we have 1,000 different machines that are being backed up. Our customers are typically enterprise-level companies.

The technical support from Amazon is good.

We don't have much contact with them because I have an assistant engineer, and the two of us know AWS very well.

I have not worked with our cloud-based backup solutions.

For on-premises systems, I work with different products such as Commvault.

The initial setup is very simple. Typically it is very fast to set up, and it is not complex. It does not require much activity from us.

For example, we don't have to install infrastructure on the cloud. The license covers the management of the environment, including updates, and all of this is handled by AWS rather than our customers.

Our customers pay a monthly AWS fee that includes the AWS Backup service.

It is important to pay attention to the consumption within different services and manage it properly. However, this is true for all of AWS and not particularly the Backup service.

The advantage that AWS Backup has over competitors is that it's very simple. It is fully integrated into the cloud services, it's very fast, and it's simple to manage.

This is a product that I can recommend for scenarios that are not too complex. For situations where one consultant wants to manage different on-premises backups in a multi-cloud environment, they require different products. Not a single solution, like AWS Backup.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to pay attention to the data transfer across different availabilities and different regions because it can be a very high cost.  

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

Use cases include the solution's use for typical backup, restore, and disaster recovery. So, AWS Backup provides a solid service as a disaster recovery solution.

Feature-wise, the valuable ones are the solution's AWS vault and the backup plan. So, the main and useful features are the vault and the vault log, and AWS backup plan.

I haven't thought about what needs improvement in the solution since it is a comprehensive solution for services related to backup and restoration.

I think the solution could be optimized further to make it capable of providing an easier user experience. To create a plan and for all the configuration, one has to do multiple steps, which could be organized in a much simpler way, making the user experience better.

In the future release, the solution should be able to provide its users with some notification when a backup is about to expire.

I have been using AWS Backup for more than a year. Also, there is no version of AWS Backup since it's a managed service by AWS.

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. AWS Backup is used by admin personnel. So, the user base is quite low. It is used for administration purposes. Our clients who use the solution are enterprise-sized ones.

I rate the tool's technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

On a scale of one to ten for the initial setup, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate the solution somewhere around seven or eight.

After the creation of the automation script, the deployment process takes a few minutes.

Creating the infrastructure as a code, the script, and then using cloud formation to deploy those scripts are the steps involved in the deployment process.

Price-wise, I rate the solution a six out of ten. One only has to pay for the storage cost of AWS solutions, which is the standard cost provided by AWS.

A person can use it as much as possible, especially if you use Amazon Cloud. Also, the solution is one of the best services provided by AWS. Since it's a managed service and depends on whether you have applications on the cloud, especially on AWS Cloud, I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.