Azure Backup Reviews

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'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 use Azure Backup to have a backup on the cloud and save our backup.

There is only one feature, and that is the backup.

Actually, there is no issue. It simply saves your backup outside of your premises.

I would like to see better pricing.

I have working with Azure Backup for two years.

We are always working with the latest version.

Azure Backup is a stable product.

Azure Backup is scalable. It is easily expandable. To expand it is paid as you go.

Our technical IT department is the only one who uses it. In our company, there are four users. There is one manager, one assistant, and two staff members.

Technical support is very good.

Previously, we used standard company products.

I've used Avast before, but it's been ten years.

It's been five or six years since I have used McAffe MOVE AnfiVirus.

The initial setup is straightforward.

It is simply straightforward. You are not required to do anything.

I would rate my experience with the setup a five out of five.

It is all done in-house. There is no need for technical assistance.

Pay as you go is the pricing model.

I would rate Azure Backup a ten out of ten.

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. 

We generally use the solution for VM backups. 

With a couple of buttons, we can configure a VM for a backup and use the wall service, the storage wall service, pretty seamlessly. 

From a day-to-day operation perspective, the installation and configuration of the Azure Backup and the backup timing are great. It offers a non-intrusive backup - like a snapshot type of backup. This way, we don't see any impact when running the backup and the job runs without any problem unless the VM host itself is having some problems. 

From the stability aspect of it, the execution aspect, I don't see any issues.

I didn't see any kind of major flaws or anything. The only thing I would say that could be improved is the reporting. It can be a little more customized or something like that. Maybe they need a little bit more on the dashboard view. The reporting and governance can be a little more fine-tuned.

I've used the solution for 18 months or so.

The solution is stable. The performance is great There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We haven't really used technical support in the past. We went with them due to the fact that it's not a complicated use case for us, so we haven't really seen any issue. We haven't really dealt with Azure Backup-related troubleshooting or anything.

I work for a client who pays for the solution. My understanding is the costs vary year to year. I don't really have any visibility, however. 

If you're hosting a majority of your platform in Azure, this solution should be okay. Azure Backup is probably the easiest solution to with, rather than bringing another third party into the mix. As a consolidated solution, the Azure Backup will work well - if your native cloud platform is Azure.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Azure Backup to backup and restore virtual machines as well as SQL Databases.

The only issue we have right now is the amount of time it takes to restore. When we attempt to restore a virtual machine, it can take hours. This is an area that could be improved.

The length of time it takes to restore is our main source of frustration. It would be beneficial to shorten the time it takes.

We had issues with shared storage in the past where it couldn't be included in the backup. Shared storage, or shared disc, wasn't available. I believe Microsoft promised to put it in their pipeline for improvement in order to add this, but I haven't double-checked. This was the issue with shared managed discs, and not being included in this backup scope.

If the shared managed disc could be included with the backup, it would be better.

I have been using Azure Backup for three years.

Azure Backup is very stable.

Azure Backup is a scalable solution.

We work with it all of the time.

Technical support is very helpful. I would rate them a four out of five.

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. It was something that was easy for us.

It was completed within a few minutes. It can depend on the environment, but usually, it is fast.

The number of staff required for maintenance depends on the automation. We require more staff now, but we are working on the automation. Generally, it is relatively low. For the most part, it works by itself.

We operate in our own environment.

Licensing fees are paid on a monthly basis.

It's not an expensive solution. I am more than happy with the price.

We are working in our own environment, assisting KPMG users and firm members. We also have internal companies.

I am an Azure Architect.

It's useful, it works, and it's fairly reliable. The only issue right now isn't a big one, but our users sometimes need faster recovery, faster restoring of services, and faster restoring of data.

I would rate Azure Backup a nine out of ten.

We have implemented a secondary contingency plan for most clients, where the primary infrastructure is on-premise, and the containers are hosted in the cloud. Some clients are currently migrating their primary solutions to the cloud. In these cases, the servers run on Azure, and Azure Backup provides backup server services. Additionally, we have implemented Azure SQL and Azure Intune for these clients.

The daily backups have become easier since we no longer need to handle large backups. The use of Azure Backup as a service has proven reliable and simplified our daily operations. Previously, we relied on LTO backups for data retention, but after migrating to the cloud and adopting Azure Backup, the delivery process has become smoother.

The simplicity of the whole operation is the most valuable feature of the solution.

I believe more options could be available to understand better what's happening in the system. Additionally, automating the client updates and connector updates would be beneficial. Updating the connector from time to time can be challenging, and it could be made more transparent and straightforward for users. Moreover, another drawback lies in the time it takes to test full data backup recovery. Deploying a full recovery takes longer. We need to allocate a longer period for complete data recovery to establish the environment again.

I have been using the solution for the past four years.

I rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten.

In a fully cloud-based solution, scalability is good, and I rate it a ten out of ten. On the other hand, for an on-premise setup, there may be challenges related to recovery and the potential impact on the Internet link's bandwidth. Therefore, I rate it an eight out of ten.

I believe Microsoft could improve its backup support.

Neutral

The initial setup was easy.

The pricing of the solution does not depend on the service itself but rather on the minimum data volume encountered. This pricing approach seems reasonable and is on par with other competitors in the market. It is a good solution for on-premise needs because it is more cost-effective. When evaluating the overall financial expenditure, including operational costs and the impact on the IT team, Azure Backup is a favorable choice.

I recommend it; however, I want to emphasize the importance of thoroughly checking if the cloud backup solution aligns with the required time frame for recovery. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Azure Backup is very simple to use and user-friendly. From the technical side, features like the tenant and the restoration part are much better. It's a Microsoft tool, and all the info we have based on the VMs will be built on the Azure platform. It's easy for us to do the backup in its OEM tool.

Azure Backup has some drawbacks. We can't have the granular level restoration, particularly for the Azure files. Sometimes, indexing doesn't happen in the Azure files. That's why we are keen to have a solution that can consider all the applications, all the OS, and the legacy applications.

One of the disadvantages of Azure Backup is that it doesn't have a MAC backup. In Azure, we cannot take the MAC backup for Mac devices.

Azure Backup's licensing model is very challenging because it doesn't give a clear picture. Whenever we go to the vendor or the OEM to buy some of the workloads, we have to take everything. We have to pay for the VMs and the storage in the Azure platform. Hence, the licensing model should be very simple for the end user to get things easily.

I have been working with Azure Backup for three years.

I rate Azure Backup a nine out of ten for stability.

I rate Azure Backup an eight and a half out of ten for scalability. Two thousand five hundred users use the solution in my company.

We have partner support from Azure Backup. Usually, we can see support in the stipulated time. We get the support based on the SLA timeline.

Positive

Since Azure Backup is a very user-friendly solution, its initial setup is very simple and shouldn't be a challenge for anyone.

We implemented the solution through our technical team.

We do not have any additional costs for Azure Backup.

Sometimes the solution has a huge bandwidth. However, it lags and does not completely perform when it has low bandwidth.

We have around 11 people involved in the maintenance of Azure Backup. Out of these 11 people, five people are from the solution architecture, and the rest are tech support partners.

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