Azure Site Recovery Reviews

We use Azure Site Recovery to duplicate our on-premises virtual machines to Azure. This ensures a backup in case of a disaster. If something goes wrong, we can quickly switch to the replicated VMs in Azure, ensuring business continuity and minimizing downtime.

What I love about Azure Site Recovery is its simplicity for basic configurations. We are currently testing it as a safety net for our VMs, and while the pricing concerns us a bit, I see the bigger picture. Investing in such services might save us more in the long run compared to maintaining on-premises infrastructure, considering hardware costs.

One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately. It would be great to have tools that provide clearer insights into how our costs might evolve over time. Like a budget forecast that considers potential fluctuations based on usage, helping avoid surprises.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery for six months.

I would rate the scalability of the solution as a seven out of ten.

We have had a few issues, and the support team's response time is pretty good. However, the process to raise tickets, especially if you're not a partner, can be a bit cumbersome. Communicating through a partner adds complexity, making it less reliable and not very straightforward. I would rate the support as a seven out of ten.

Neutral

The initial setup of Azure Site Recovery can be a bit challenging, especially if there are missing parts or specific health issues. Experience is crucial, and having a skilled team is a must for a smooth setup.

The pricing for Azure Site Recovery isn't fixed, and it depends on factors like storage, network traffic, and resource usage. While it is not crystal clear, I have noticed it fluctuates with these variables. This flexibility makes it a bit challenging to estimate costs accurately, but I get that this is often the case with cloud services in general.

My advice to new users would be to gain a solid understanding of how the cloud works, know your infrastructure well, and be aware of your system's utilization in terms of computing, memory, and storage. Asking questions and seeking advice are crucial. Don't be surprised by unexpected costs; try to plan and estimate as accurately as possible to ensure cost-effectiveness. Overall, I would rate Azure Site Recovery as an eight out of ten.

We use Azure Site Recovery for our disaster recovery and business continuity purposes.

Azure Site Recovery is an easy-to-use and fairly stable solution for disaster recovery.

It would be good if we could replicate the solution to multiple locations simultaneously because we are currently allowed to replicate to just a single location.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery for five years.

Azure Site Recovery is a fairly stable solution.

Azure Site Recovery's scalability is pretty good. Around 25 users are extensively using the solution in our organization, and we plan to increase the usage gradually.

Microsoft support, in general, is not that great. We've had some failures in some cases, and we've not got the expertise in troubleshooting the issues from Microsoft.

Azure Site Recovery's initial setup is fairly simple.

We implemented the solution through an in-house team. It takes a couple of hours to set up the solution. We went through a rigorous testing process. We did a POC, and once the results were to our expectations, we went live with it.

Azure Site Recovery is neither very expensive nor very cheap. There is a monthly service cost attached to it.

I am using the latest version of Azure Site Recovery. Azure Site Recovery is a cloud-based solution.

I would recommend Azure Site Recovery to other users.

Overall, I rate Azure Site Recovery a seven out of ten.

Our data was on VMware VM, and we used Azure Site Recovery to replicate all data into Azure.

What I like best about Azure Site Recovery is that it's easier to use because my organization already uses Azure as an Active Directory solution, which means the organization already has a tenant. It was easier to go for Azure Site Recovery, though the solution's features can also be found in other solutions in the market.

I also found the load-balancing feature of Azure Site Recovery valuable. The solution fulfills the needs of my organization.

It was easier to configure the server in the older version of Azure Site Recovery. Still, in the newest version, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement in the solution.

Azure Site Recovery is a stable solution.

Azure Site Recovery is highly scalable, and even when my team did some failover testing, it was scalable.

Our Microsoft partner also provides technical support for Azure Site Recovery, and our experience with them is excellent. We were partners with them when we were using AD, and now they're also giving us technical support, so we just extended our support.

The initial setup for Azure Site Recovery wasn't that complex, though its configuration was confusing. There wasn't much documentation available on configuring Azure Site Recovery as it had just launched, so that was a bit tricky. Still, my organization was able to set it up.

My organization has a Microsoft partner who helped implement Azure Site Recovery.

I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers.

I've used Azure Site Recovery.

My organization has three Azure Site Recovery users. The service provider handles the maintenance of the solution. I own the apps, so I'm in charge of the apps, ensuring that the apps always run. Another team member works with the service provider on the security side. My organization also has an infrastructure engineer working with the service provider.

As Azure Site Recovery fulfills my organization's needs and is pretty straightforward and understandable, I rate it as eight out of ten.

I'm a customer of Microsoft.

We use the solution across hospitality and healthcare domains. We use it for custom development. It helps us develop a seamless omnichannel for the healthcare industry. 

Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability. 

I have been using the product since 2014. 

I rate the product's stability an eight out of ten. 

I rate Azure Site Recovery's scalability a seven out of ten. My company has more than 200 external users and 12 internal ones. 

Azure Site Recovery's tech support is fast and knowledgeable. 

Positive

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

Azure Site Recovery is affordable. 

You can collaborate with established partners and professionals who have expertise in Azure Site Recovery. Gain knowledge and then implement it. I rate the product an eight out of ten. It is recommended for Microsoft-oriented ecosystems. Non-Microsoft organizations will find the product difficult. 

Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs. 

The tool should improve synchronization. 

I have been using the solution for two weeks. 

Azure Site Recovery is a stable product. 

The solution is a scalable product. My company has three to four users for the product. You need one to two technical resources to handle the deployment. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and takes around three weeks to complete. 

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Customers are interested in utilizing a BI engine for data recovery. While they initially provided their entire recovery, there have been instances where they considered switching to another solution. For certain customers, they opt not to cover the entire hardware or use Cisco cybersecurity, which might not be the case.

I conveyed the feedback to the agent, suggesting an increase in the agent count in our VNS in the USA. I also addressed notification concerns, as some issues didn't trigger alerts during a recent call.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery for three years. 

I would rate the stability 8 out of 10. 

It is very scalable. 

Before considering the use of Savavi services, there's an upfront payment requirement for numerous hours. In contrast, with Azure, the costs are more flexible, allowing payment based on actual usage rather than a fixed amount. This approach avoids the need to commit significant funds upfront, making it more cost-effective, especially in cases where the service might not be consistently utilized, ensuring a better return on investment.

It is easy. 

They have a license to pay. 

Overall, I would rate it 8 out of 10. 

We back up our site to it and use it for a VR. We are using the most up to date version of this solution.

The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. 

It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up.

It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning.

I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It always works.

It is scalable. Currently, we have only one user who uses it.

I don't work with tech support, but they can have a quicker turnaround on the tech support.

It was pretty straightforward. It was just installing the clients and setting up your site recovery. You can also use the documentation. 

Our network or systems engineer maintains it.

It should have more straightforward billing. The billing was what got funky. It was really cheap. We would pay based on the usage. We paid around $225 a month for site-to-site replication.

The best advice that I could give is to just research what Azure Site Recovery is for. It is not a backup solution. So, even though you have enabled Site Recovery, you still need backups.

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a nine out of ten.

We use Azure Site Recovery primarily for disaster recovery to Azure or from Azure, while Veeam is used for data center recovery.

It’s native to Azure and does exactly what it’s designed to do—recover one site to another without creating all the VMs on that site. This helps reduce costs on the secondary site.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery as a partner for two years.

There is no issues with stability.

It is suitable for large enterprises. It is scalable. These businesses have around 500 users. 

Support is wonderful.

It is easy to configure.

It is cost-effective.

The team conducted a thorough analysis before choosing Azure Site Recovery. They likely considered integration costs and various other factors.

It seems to be seamless and is working perfectly. They’re integrating it with Azure Stack Hub, which we’ve also deployed as an on-premises solution.

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