Azure Backup Reviews

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 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.

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.

The main use case is to back up my on-premises machines, essentially resembling the traditional backup software that has been included with Windows operating systems for the past three decades. In this specific case, it's a cloud-based solution. This cloud-based backup service also offers regional redundancy. For instance, if you're using the South UK region as your primary location for backups, you have the option to mirror your backups to another designated region. In the past, this secondary region used to be highly customizable, but now specific regions are designated as partners. For instance, Western North Europe may be a partner region. This means you are constrained to using specific partner regions for redundancy. If the primary region encounters issues, the secondary region will seamlessly take over the backup load.

It is a functional backup solution. One of its standout features is similar to the "Recycle Bin" on your Windows Explorer desktop but for your backups. You have the flexibility to encrypt your backups and choose the storage capacity you're comfortable paying for. It empowers you to create virtual machines that scan your network and assume the administrative tasks related to backup. This means you can easily configure backups between different machines, similar to what you can do with vSphere in VMware, where automation takes care of administering your machines. These capabilities extend beyond just Hyper-V and also cover Mobile Device Management (MDM).

When attempting to back up encrypted files and later restore them to another location, it's essential to configure your service principal names. Many Windows administrators are familiar with this and handle it manually. It would be beneficial to receive alert messages if something isn't configured correctly, for instance, if service principal names are missing, a message could prompt you to set them up. This is a common challenge shared by various backup programs and administrators who are unaware of these requirements tend to overlook them, rendering encrypted file restores impossible. It is essential to test the restore functionality to ensure it works as expected. Also, having configuration assistance with quality of service features would be valuable for administrators. This would allow administrators to allocate resources effectively, deciding how much bandwidth to assign to different backup tasks. An upcoming feature, that appears promising, is the platform connectivity feature. This feature will apply to various types of networks, including video networks and other backup networks. It would be great to see a similar capability integrated into Azure Backup in the future.

I have been working with it for five years.

The customer support is truly exceptional. I've had the opportunity to experience support from Cisco, which is renowned for its top-tier service. In comparison, Microsoft's support is right up there, coming in as a close second. I would rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

I have some experience, but I am not actively utilizing Veeam anymore. I've found Azure Backup to be quite satisfactory for my needs. Some of my clients still prefer Veeam. It's worth noting that the terminology and concepts in these backup solutions are very similar. Veeam is often considered more user-friendly, but it comes at a higher cost. With Azure Backup, you primarily pay for storage. It may seem like a marketing strategy by Microsoft, but it's important to understand that the cost of the backup service itself is bundled into the storage pricing.

The initial setup is relatively straightforward. You just need to follow the instructions provided, which are usually quite clear. Whether you're selecting Hyper-V or a barebone machine, the instructions are generally easy to understand. The only potential challenge I've encountered is with download links when you need to install an agent. When it comes to the backup processes themselves, I haven't faced any significant issues. All of my students have been able to follow the instructions, which speaks to the product's usability and reliability.

In terms of ROI, it has proven to be quite successful for my specific needs, and it is incredibly cost-effective. I am quite satisfied with it.

It is incredibly cost-effective and offers fixed pricing, with no additional fees for the licensing.

As with any backup software, it's crucial to thoroughly test the recovery process to ensure it functions as intended. Sometimes, the issue might simply be forgetting to configure your service principal names (SPNs). SPNs can be somewhat similar to DNS names. When you enter "Google.com," you expect to receive an IP address. Similarly, when dealing with service principal names, you specify the HTTP or another service on a particular machine and expect to validate it with a certificate. It is an essential step that should not be overlooked. If these configurations are forgotten, it could result in backups that cannot be restored, which is far from ideal. Therefore, rigorous testing is essential to validate the effectiveness of your backup strategy. Overall, I would rate it nine out of ten.

Customers nowadays are planning to migrate their workloads from on-premises to the cloud, like Azure. Microsoft offers Azure Backup as a service, which allows backup for virtual machines, SQL databases, HANA databases, and even file shares. 

If the customer's workloads are supported by Azure, we recommend Azure Backup as a service. However, for workloads not supported by Azure Backup, we look for third-party investment solutions.

One notable feature is that snapshots are computed in less time, enabling faster system recovery. Even for large systems, we can recover them in less time. For example, if it's a recent backup, it can be done in less than 15 minutes.

Another benefit is that the backup utilization is not high. Comparing the pricing with other technologies, Azure Backup is more affordable for customers.

One feature is VMware backup with replication. Many customers are interested in this. Additionally, Azure Backup allows customers to extend their retention period for more than five or ten years, which is beneficial compared to other enterprise backup solutions. The monitoring capability is also good. 

Moreover, encryption is maintained by Microsoft if we follow the platform team management system. This is crucial as customers want to ensure the security of their data on Azure. The configuration is user-friendly, and we have control over backup storage utilization and VM consumption. 

When it comes to improvements, Microsoft should provide us with an option to explore the logs. So if there's any failure by seeing the error, in some cases, we will be able to resolve it. But 50% of the cases are being handled by Microsoft itself, like getting the logs from the back end. That's the one thing that I've seen that has to be enhanced from Microsoft's end.

Azure Backup is limited to certain workloads. It would be helpful if Microsoft focused on enabling backups for Oracle and other unsupported databases.

We have multiple customers, and we categorize the Commvault infrastructure based on customer mix. We have more than ten Comsources, and we distribute the load accordingly. Based on client utilization, we configure the backup equally across the media agents.

The stability is good. I didn't find any challenges. The installations also work as expected. The customers do not have any concerns about it.

Customer service and support vary based on the issue. I've had personal experiences where some issues took more than fifteen days to resolve while others were resolved in one or two days. Overall, it's good, but there is room for improvement based on my personal experience.

The initial setup is very simple. We have to have an idea of the networking cost structure and the configuration. We also have to get confirmation from the customer about what kind of retention they are looking for.

We can also have the data deployed to other regions, which is a nice feature. If there is any disaster in the primary region, we'll be able to read the data from a secondary region. That's also one of the very good features offered by Azure Backup. 

The deployment process is quite easy in Azure. Enabling backup for any VM takes less than five minutes. We just need to create a vault and discover the VM for backup. So, in terms of deployment, it's straightforward and user-friendly.

I haven't found the need for much maintenance. In comparison to other backup solutions where we maintain our own infrastructure, Azure Backup handles everything. We simply create a library, assign a policy, and associate the VM with the trusted backup vault. Microsoft manages everything, and there are no limitations in terms of storage utilization.

Comparing the pricing with other technologies, Azure Backup is more affordable for customers. It follows a pay-as-you-go model, where we pay according to our consumption.

In terms of Azure Backup, there is no special license required. We only need to pay for the amount of data we consume and the data transferred across the network. The pricing is calculated based on these two factors. There is no explicit license cost. We just need to allocate a budget for storage and related expenses.

When it comes to advice, it's important to understand the specific requirements of the customer. If the customer requires backups for VMs, SQL, and SAP HANA, Microsoft's Azure Backup can be a suitable choice. 

However, if there are other workloads that are not supported by Microsoft, alternative backup solutions should be considered. The decision depends on the specific requirements. Azure Backup offers services related to cost, storage utilization, encryption, and scalability.

Overall, I would rate the solution a seven out of ten.

We use this solution for across-the-board data protection. That includes VMs, and storage pools for basically any level of recoverability whether for files, storage pools or transactional data. I'm an enterprise architect. 

Backup helps quite a bit in terms of immediate recovery and immediate restoration. It's very helpful when it comes to data corruption, file damage, or inadvertent deletions. The other component is the relatively broad data protection we get across the entire Azure landing zone. It backs up efficiently and reports better than a lot of traditional tools. 

I think the extensibility onto hybrid environments needs a bit of tweaking. It's great in the cloud but when you're on-prem it requires quite a bit of infrastructure in terms of Azure ARC and bringing it back. 

I've been using this solution for around four years. 

The solution is quite stable and reliable. We've had a few little nominal outages, but nothing terrible. It's much more reliable than any of the traditional on-premise kind of private cloud environments. 

The solution is very scalable for us but scalability depends on your location.There are no problems accessing Azure in Europe or North America but if you're looking at the newer regions, they're slower in adding the same capability. I used Azure in Dublin because there was no Azure in Africa. When they turned on Azure in South Africa we had to switch to that but we only got 50% of the functionality. South Africa should have been brought to the same level before we had to make the move from Dublin. It's taken us backward. 

The initial setup is fairly standard and not too complex. Deployment generally takes a few days depending on the size. Anything to do with data retention takes more time as we have to define the backup schedules and retention and those kinds of things. Validating the backups is quick and efficient but determining which data we need to keep and for how long, takes time. Those are all issues related to the customer.

Deployment steps are basically about carrying out an inventory of the workloads. You want to guard the types of protection you're applying specifically to databases versus different systems and services, and then how that ties into full recoverability. That would take a week maximum in the worst case and we do that internally. 

We usually have two systems engineers involved in maintenance. Different projects require different capacities.

ROI is very good as long as you modernize your solutions and then it brings quite a saving. If you don't upgrade to cloud, and you just do a lift and shift, it'll kill you with the cost.

Licensing costs are consumption-based so the more storage we eat, the more data we protect, the greater the cost.

It's important to ensure that the capabilities you require are available in your region. Feature availability per region is the most important thing. You can't do a design for Azure in North America and then think that it's going to work everywhere. Azure is not consistent so you may be forced to buy third-party products that you didn't budget for.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We use Commvault for on premises clients and the Azure Backup for cloud-based clients.

This solution is easy to configure and restore. It is a Microsoft product so is easily compatible with other solutions.

The restoration of permissions is a functionality that could be improved. If I want to restore permissions, I should be able to do this. 

Secondly, there is a limitation of 99 files restores per day which means that we can't complete a huge file restore. We would like Azure to increase the number of the possible file restorations.

I have been using this solution for five years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution besides the limitations on file restorations.

It takes a long time to resolve support tickets with the Microsoft support team. They could offer faster resolution of tickets. I would rate them a two out of five. 

Neutral

We use Azure Backup alongside Commvault Hyperscale X. The latter offers a compression ratio that is much higher compared to Azure Backup. There are no limitations on file restorations using Commvault. 

Azure Backup is free and we are only charged for storage. Commvault is definitely costly compared to Azure Backup.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward, 

Azure offers competitive pricing and charges us only for the storage space that we use.