Azure Backup Reviews

Our company was facing a lot of difficulties maintaining the servers, and we did not have a solid backup solution. So, we moved to Azure.

The product is very reliable and easy to use. Microsoft tools are very user-friendly.

The product could improve its performance.

I used the solution in my previous organization for about two years.

The tool had stability issues. The support team took care of it.

The tool is easily scalable since it is cloud-based. Around 1500 people were using the solution in our organization.

The support was superb. Whenever we had any issues, we called the support team.

Positive

The installation was easy. We took two to three months to deploy the solution. We had to plan since we had a lot of servers.

We had a partner who assisted us in installing the solution. We had a SPOC who was taking care of everything. We required two or three people on the back end to deploy the product. The partner assisted us, and we did the planning and strategy. The solution was easy to maintain. We needed two people to maintain it.

The product is neither too expensive nor too cheap. It is moderately priced. We pay a monthly subscription fee for the solution. We have to pay additionally for the ticket cost for support. We also have to pay for any extra services that we avail.

The solution is neither better nor worse than other products. It is on the cloud, so we don't have any backup appliances on-premises. The drawback is that it relies on network bandwidth and other factors for recovery. If we had a backup appliance on-premise, it would be easy to recover.

We had branch offices in India, headquarters in Hong Kong, and multiple offices in Singapore, the UK, and the US. All the branches were using Azure.

People who want a purely cloud-based solution can use the product. People who want a hybrid solution must consider other vendors. Though Azure has secondary data on the cloud, it still recommends using some third-party tools like Veeam and Commvault. Having data on Azure and backup data on another third-party vendor is fair enough.

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Azure Backup to back up Azure servers and databases. It isn't used for active data storage. 

Azure Backup helps us resolve some issues on the back end. 

Azure Backup enables us to store anything Azure-related. 

The recovery time could be faster.

I have used Azure Backup for about four years.

Azure Backup is cloud-based, so it's scalable.

Our support is good because we have a support agreement with Microsoft. 

I rate Azure Backup nine out of 10. You should plan what you want to back up so you can implement the solution quicker. 

We use Azure for our application and back end software. Most of our servers are on Azure. We have our fleet management and system tracking, and all the data from our thousands of clients are connected to Azure. We provide each client with their own backup solution to help them with disaster recovery.

Azure Backup has helped us reach needed information wherever we are. The compression features reduce storage costs and allow us to store more data using less space. It significantly lowers costs, especially in cloud-based solutions.

As a cybersecurity company, we value the data encryption and security offered by Azure Backup. 

The encryption, both in transit and at rest, provides additional security against data breaches. Azure Backup is also reliable and scalable, allowing for scalability and different storage options like cold and hot storage. 

The compression features save us money and speed up the backup and restore process.

Azure sometimes provides reliable recovery that can be slow for large-scale scenarios. They can add features that allow quicker recovery for large databases or virtual machines. 

Easier configuration and automation would be helpful for cross-region backups, improving disaster recovery for global operations. Enhancements in reporting and analytics could be beneficial.

I have been working with Azure Backup for around eight or nine years.

The solution is very stable. Over the years, we never had any problems with it.

For scalability, I would rate Azure Backup an 8.5 out of ten. Everything needs to be scalable, and it is important for us.

Azure offers 24/7 support and multiple support plans. It depends on what you choose. If you choose the basic, it's limited. 

We've been satisfied because we provide our own support. I understand that if you choose premium support, Azure can dedicate resources for you.

Positive

I tried AWS and Google, however, we have been with Microsoft for more than 18 years. AWS has limited support, which is a problem for me as a consultant.

The setup process can be challenging for someone new or with minimal technical background. However, Microsoft has simplified its interface. The backup interface with the Azure portal is user-friendly, with a wizard guide system. 

Complexity can arise when connecting to databases, but the wizard simplifies the process.

Pricing is middle plus, and it's a bit high. We always wait for prices to reduce, however, Azure sometimes offers special discounts or packages if you commit for more years.

Amazon Web Services (AWS) Backup is a competitor. AWS is good for heavy environments but lacks support compared to Azure.

Reporting and analytics improvements with AI technology would be helpful. The setup process is brief and user-friendly with clear steps at each stage.

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.

The product is used for disaster recovery. We worked for a bank that needed disaster recovery. The bank was using a VMware solution. They also had some critical virtual machines. So, we deployed the solution for them.

The tool has a lot of features. It is really useful.

We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed. We have to troubleshoot a lot. We do not know the reason for the issue.

I use the solution in my organization.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Only three to four companies use the solution in our region.

Our customers contact the support team to troubleshoot their issues.

I have used Nutanix. There was a big difference in the cost of Nutanix and Azure. Azure has a pay-as-you-go model. Azure is better than Nutanix.

The initial setup was straightforward. It is a cloud solution. We download the agent and scan for the VMs on-premise. Then, we connect the on-premise server with Azure. Later, we do the network and storage configuration.

We save money because we do not need a data center. We pay only for storage, and it is not very expensive.

The product is not expensive. We just pay for the storage. The storage is not expensive.

Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

I utilized Azure Backup for the purpose of backing up and restoring data. Specifically, I performed a recovery operation by transferring data from a single location to one of several designated locations. Our objective is to replicate the data from the original location to a secondary location, ensuring that we can restore it from the alternate site in the event of any unforeseen disruptions.

Azure Backup provides support for virtual machines. To get started, we must install the agent on the VM, allowing us to initiate backups and store the data in our designated storage. By leveraging the backup data, we can then enable the site recovery feature. Initially, we must create the site recovery configuration, where we identify the purpose and requirements of our setup. Additionally, we need to create an account and subscription to facilitate this process. Within the subscription, we gain the ability to migrate or replicate our backups from one location to another, ensuring data loss prevention measures are in place which has improved our organization's functionality.

The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is the file recovery and file vault.

Azure lacks sufficient solutions for a particular scenario, we may need to resort to using third-party applications. In such cases, these applications can be employed to facilitate backup, replication, and the efficient utilization of internet connectivity and bandwidth. They enable us to effectively manage and transfer data while ensuring optimal utilization of network resources. However, it would be a benefit if we did not have to use third-party applications for these operations.

As an additional solution for prospective clients, we can implement Digital Rights Management (DRM) or high availability measures. By setting up DRM or establishing high availability configurations, we can ensure that services remain operational even in the event of downtime. This approach guarantees uninterrupted production and minimizes any negative impact. To deliver this type of solution to clients, the vendor will need to create and provide an architecture and solution that ensures zero downtime.

I have been using Azure Backup for approximately seven years.

I rate the stability of Azure Backup a seven out of ten.

We have engineers using this solution who report to me.

We use the solution regularly and we plan to increase usage.

I rate the scalability of Azure Backup a seven out of ten.

I rate the support of Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have used Veeam Backup and Veritas Backup previously. I switched to Azure Backup because we are able to have flexible deployment methods.

The initial setup required some assistance. The deployment depends on the company's size and environment. 

The first stage of our deployment is accessing the client's information, such as environment size, the reason for use, and what deployment model we are interested in.

I rate the initial setup of Veeam Backup & Replication a seven out of ten.

I am able to the deployment of this solution in some cases. However, if it is a large environment I will need assistance. We need approximately two to three engineers for the deployment, but it depends on the requirements. We could need more people to assist. The engineers will have to have knowledge regarding Azure and hybrid integration. We use a third party for deployment.

We evaluated other options before choosing Azure Backup, such as Veeam Backup.

Maintenance does not necessarily require any additional review. We can calculate and plan where everything based on the scheduled downtime. If the codebase is extensive, requiring a hundred or more hours of work, it would be advisable to allocate a team of three to five engineers to handle the maintenance tasks efficiently.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

The product is a part of our cloud infrastructure strategy.

All of the core features are valuable to us.

The product satisfies the need for backups within Azure. However, it is not very flexible in the world of technology. I can’t use the solution to restore another native cloud solution. Azure must add this new feature.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

We have had very little downtime. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution has decent scalability. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We reached out to the technical support team for some minor issues. Microsoft’s technical support is not the greatest. Our experience has been the same across all the services.

Neutral

We used Commvault. It is quite diverse in its capabilities and provides flexible options for backup across multi-cloud platforms.

The initial setup was straightforward. The product is deployed on the cloud.

We have enterprise-level pricing. I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

We can use the solution if we don't plan to work in a multi-cloud environment. It meets our requirements. Azure Backup might not be the right product for us if we want a higher disaster recovery capability. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We're using it as a native tool for VM-level backup.

When it comes to Azure Backup, the advantage is that it's native and it's very easy to configure. We don't require a separate tool or manage something on a separate server. At the backend, it's managed by Microsoft itself, and we don't need to manage it. 

In Avamar, the file-based restores are very quick and fast, whereas, in Azure Backup, VM restore is super easy, but if I have to do a file or a folder restore, I have to mount the entire VM image. I have to wait for some time for it to be mounted, and then I have to go inside and then check the file and copy it somewhere. It's a bit of a manual process, whereas in Avamar, you can directly select a file and folder, and it'll recover with whatever permissions you want. That's better in Avamar, and that's the only thing that's lacking in Azure. File or folder recovery is complex and time-consuming.

I've been working with Azure Backup for two years.

There is no separate tool, so there is no issue with stability. If the Avamar server goes down, all the backups will fail, whereas, in the case of Azure Backup, there is no separate tool. If there is any issue with a particular server, only that backup will fail, but there is no single point of failure in Azure Backup, which is not the case with Avamar because it has to rely on a server. I'd rate Azure Backup a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of scalability because there is no limit. You can configure as many backups as you like. There is no limitation on storage space because it's not a separate tool. It goes to the Azure backend. They are managing it, so there is no storage limit. It's completely scalable.

The level-one support is not that good, but it's slightly better than Avamar. I'd rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

We also use Avamar, but that can only take a file-level backup for the VMs in Azure. For a VM-level backup, we have to use a native Azure tool.

With Avamar, we have to manage the Avamar server, whereas we don't need to manage the Azure server. We just directly configure the backup of each server, and we don't have to worry about the maintenance of the tool because it's inherently native to the Azure portal. That's the biggest advantage.

I'd rate its setup a ten out of ten in terms of ease because you don't need to read anything to configure it. It's super easy like filling out a form.

The number of people required for its deployment depends on how many devices we need to configure. If we're migrating a big enterprise with hundreds or thousands of servers, we would require two or three people to manage it.

The deployment duration depends on the migration timelines. Generally, 300 or 400 can be configured in one day because it's centralized. There is a checkbox to select everything and put it once the other policy is created.

It comes with a total package of VMs and other things, so it's a bit difficult to distinguish between just the backup cost because it's an all-in-one cost. I don't manage the billing. There is a separate team that manages the billing. Overall, its cost is better because the VMs are already there, and whatever you back up, there is only the additional cost of that storage, whereas if I have to use Avamar in Azure, a separate cost is there for the Avamar server, and in addition, whatever I take as a backup, there is a separate license with Avamar for that. So, there is a double cost if we have to use Avamar in the cloud.

It's pretty easy. When you do the AZ-900 or AZ-104 course, you will understand most of it, whereas, in the case of Avamar, there is no training shared for free.

Overall, I'd rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a backup.

With on-premises servers, you can have a long-term archival sitting on public clouds, like Azure. That is also one of the very good use cases where you're avoiding all the tape requirements for your long-term archival. 

It's a native solution provided by Microsoft. It solves the needs we have. We are using it at most places, unless, and until there is some specific requirement where there's a database or something, which you're getting out of the box from Azure Backup. That's when we go for other third-party backup solutions. Otherwise, for the VM backups and all of that, it's a great product. It's one of the best solutions for backups.

It's easy to use. 

The storage cost is not too much. 

It gives you what you would like to have from a basic solution, like machine backup, or for your snapshots. Everything can be done from the platform itself. 

The management interface is very intuitive and familiar. It makes it a lot easier for anyone to manage it or to actually work on it.

The integration with the record database and integration with other applications will be good, especially with the database piece. MySQL and Oracle are very widely used databases and Azure Backup doesn't have tight integration with them. It only provides the backup of the disc and the virtual machine and associated data, however, it doesn't provide you an application of their backup for non-Microsoft products, especially. That is where SQL Server, which is a Microsoft database, provides a good integration for the initial backup in MySQL which is a widely used database solution. They should actually provide that or you can handle integration with those databases as well.

The most important thing is integration with third-party products. That could be one of the best features. Whenever we have to look for databases or specific applications, that's when things get complicated and where third parties, like Win Backup, Symantec, and other backup solutions come in. The most important thing they can do to improve is to cover at least industry standard databases first.

I've been using the solution for seven or eight years now. 

The backup stability is good.

Scalability is fine. For any mid-size org, it is a good solution. We have done it for close to 2,000 servers, so it is working fine.

In terms of tech support, I'm disappointed with support. It's not like earlier days. Earlier Microsoft tech support used to be one of the best. Now that's not the case. You have long queues and you have to wait a bit longer compared to earlier. What I can say is there are a lot of articles, and there are self-help resources. Those are available. That actually helps in troubleshooting. You do not always have to open a ticket unless and until there is something really critical. You just don't get a timely response.

Neutral

I have used AWS. Azure is a more mature product. AWS didn't used to have a backup solution. 

It's easy to deploy.

We have a deployment team. There is usually very few people dealing with the implementation. You might have eight to ten guys doing the migration and other things. Recently, we did a project where there were close to 1,000 servers that have to be moved to the public cloud and we implemented Azure Backup for all of them. It didn't take much of our time since the management and the interface are very easy and you don't have much to do over there. 

It's a slow process. You're not moving all of them at one shot. We'll do 15 to 20 servers in a batch, which we are doing based on the applications. One application, we are going to move at a given time. If there are 15 to 20 servers within one particular application, it takes hardly a few hours to go and do everything. However, if there are many, many applications, it will take time.

We handle the implementation for our clients. 

The ROI is good based on the cost itself. The upfront cost itself is less and it includes your licensing and hosting and everything. There are no other industry-standard backups like it. The licensing costs are very high and you need it in front of all of that. It is hosted on the cloud. Even if you go with something which is hosted on the cloud, the license cost is high. If you compare it with other costs of solutions, Microsoft has done a good job of providing a native backup solution with very affordable pricing. 

The cost for Azure backup is purely based on the size of the data and the virtual machine as well as the number of virtual machines. It's around $10 to $15 per month per virtual machine, along with something extra based on the size of the data. It covers 500 GBs or something like that. If you go beyond that for a virtual machine, you will have to pay extra.

We're Microsoft partners and we do have many customers who are using the Microsoft platform.

We are always using the latest version of the solution. 

It's on-cloud and in some servers on-premises, which we are taking from the backup cloud. It's mostly for the infrastructure sitting on the cloud.

The solution should be an eight out of ten.

Potential users should actually look for compatibility. With any service that you talk about in a public cloud, one should first understand the requirement and then they should do some sort of research or they should, if they're new to it, have a look into the compatibility and the articles. Those are provided by Microsoft in terms of basic requirements or constraints that they have. They have a lot of constraints around. You have to be very careful which geography it is. What is the cost and what kinds of constraints do they have in terms of compatibility with any operating system or application? Those are the four or five things that one should look at before considering it as a solution or implementation.