Dell Avamar Reviews

The implementation is very easy. It's not difficult to set up at all.

The product is very powerful and offers very good performance.

Compared with Cohesity or Rubrik, which have some continuous data protection for backup and replication, this solution tends to lack in this area. 

When we propose this solution to a customer, the customer always asks us "Okay, can I have backup plus replication as well?". The performance backup, I know it's good, however, some customers ask about the backup plus replication, continuous data protection, or something like that. That's where it falls short.

Avamar should help protect against ransomware or maybe offer some sort of monitoring. It would be great if they had monitoring protection from the ransomware added into the overall offering.

Some customers are asking about an appliance model. It would be nice if they offered that.

I've been using the solution for the last two years. I have a bit of experience with the solution at this point.

The solution is quite stable. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. We've found the stability to be very good overall.

The solution scales well. If a company needs to expand it, it should be able to do so quite easily. It's not a problem.

We've used technical support quite a bit and have always been satisfied with the level of support that they've provided to us. They're very helpful and responsive.

We also use Dell NetWorker.

The implementation is very simple. It's not complex. A company shouldn't have any problems setting up the solution.

We're Dell partners. We have a business relationship with the company.

While we work with newer versions of the solution, we tend not to use the latest one. We try not to deploy the latest so we can avoid any issues. We're likely on version 19.1 which we've used since last year. We upgraded from 7.5.

I'd rate the solution at a nine out of ten. It's been a pretty good experience overall.

It is our main backup system while we're in the middle of switching over to Cohesity.

Scheduling is valuable. It does a good job of backing up, and it does a good job of restoring. Nobody has got a problem with that. The agents are well supported. 

In terms of functionality, it is rock solid. It does its job.

The UI is a complete mess. It is graphic, but it might as well be a CLI considering how difficult it is to work with. It takes an entire person and a significant amount of time to manage backups within the company. It really shouldn't be that hard.

When you get down to doing certain things, such as somebody wants a particular file restored, the process by which you do that is stupid. You kind of have to know exactly where to look for in order to find it. Even on older backup products that I've used, I didn't have that kind of problem. If we were looking for a file with a particular kind of a name, the solution would find that file anywhere irrespective of where it resides within the backup system. So, we didn't have to know the name of the specific server, the specific timeframe, almost all the characters of the file name, and all kinds of data in order to find a file. In Avamar, we got to know these details. We've gone around and around with them on that, and their attitude seems to be that it is working just fine. There is nothing for them to improve. The organizational system of other products that I'm working with, such as Zerto and Cohesity, seems to be centered around the tasks that you would most commonly do and want to do, as opposed to we've laid it out in a really neat technical hierarchy. 

There should be some kind of greater granularity in the way it is storing backups. The reason why we're using things like Zerto and going to Cohesity, at least in the DR environment, and this will work in terms of backups as well, is that we need to be able to have a recovery point objective with some kind of granularity, such as every 15 minutes, every half hour, or every hour in case of a disaster recovery scenario, ransomware scenario, etc. We're pretty much allowed to do our once-in-a-day backup every 24 hours or however we schedule them. In most cases, we don't do anything different for basic backups, but it seems very difficult within Avamar to do anything if we want to have an image of a system every so often or at least an incremental point of reference or an RPO point. 

The other thing is that the way that it locks files seems to make those systems unavailable while it is operating the backup. So, we have to very carefully schedule our backups after hours or over periods of time when there is low bandwidth of the transactions happening. With the other products we have, we don't have this problem. I certainly don't have that problem with Zerto. I've got a recovery point of every few seconds, and it doesn't seem to take a lot of storage room to do that. Storage is a big thing for us. It is very expensive, and that's always an issue for us. So, things like deduplication would be really nice to have.

I have been using this solution for at least six years.

It is rock solid. We don't ever have any problems with backups being lost or anything like that.

All of the data in the company is used by one person or another, so there are a couple of thousand users.

Their technical support is excellent. We've never had any problem dealing with Avamar in terms of technical support. We've had some nasty instances too where they've not been able to drill down on things and support their own product.

I've only been with the company for about five years, and it was present when I came on board.

I would rate Dell EMC Avamar a six out of 10. It is a pretty basic backup system in terms of features. It does its job. However, its UI is just ridiculous.

The most valuable feature of Avamar would have to be the way it works over needing very little bandwidth to move data across a WAN or LAN.

The interface has room for improvement. It's not ideal right now.

The product needs to have compatibility with more advanced systems such as Oracle ASM files.

The automation and orchestration features need work. Other products like Vain, for example, lend themselves to better automation and orchestration. 

If you want to set up integration with a cloud environment, for example, it's very difficult to do that. Avamar doesn't work very well in the cloud environment.

The solution requires better ease of use and compatibility. It would be ideal if it could work with Oracle on an ISM environment.

There needs to be better iintegration into the public cloud environments. 

It would be better if the cost of the product was less.

I've been using the solution for about ten years now. It's been at least a decade at this point. I've worked with it in various companies as well.

Technical support, from my experience with the vendor, has been good. We're satisfied with the level of service Dell offers. They seem to be knowledgeable and responsive.

I personally have a lot of experience in the space. For example, I've worked with Looker, NetWorker, Commvault, and other competitive technologies, including Dell's own NetWorker.

The initial setup is okay. It's a little complex, however, overall, it's not too bad to implement.

The price of the product could be lower. It's actually probably one of the more expensive products, at least in the enterprise-class. Other technologies are cheaper, and other vendors are adding more features. Therefore, it's falling behind a bit in what other vendors are doing. They need to catch up.

I'm just a customer and don't have a professional relationship with Dell.

Whether or not, I'd advise a new user to implement this product depends on their environment. It's very good. It's a very well distributed environment and it's probably the best product on the market. However, most companies today are engaging in leveraging the cloud, and in that case, my advice to them is to look at other technologies.

On a scale from one to ten, I'd rate it a seven. If it offered better orchestration and cloud capabilities, for example, it would push it up to a nine. A cost reduction in their pricing model would push it up there as well.

We use this solution for tape backup and data domain. It is an on-premises deployment.

We have a lot of backups, and this tool helps us with the RMAN Backup.

The most valuable feature is D2 and conversion with the Data Domain because other solutions are not able to use the Data Domain.

Integration with VMware is great.

There are limitations when trying to use this solution with Hyper-V. The limitations exist when trying to restore a backup from Hyper-V.

This solution needs to have full integration with Hyper-V, like the way Veeam has. In the hub, the DBA cannot restore the backup directory directly on the host. They have to restore the data disks and then deploy to the VM after this is done.

I would like to see an open-source learning platform for this solution.

This is a very stable solution. We use this product on a daily basis.

I like the scalability this solution has. We have more than fifty severs and more than four hundred VMs. We do not plan to increase usage at this time.

Technical support for this solution was great. They are very quick to respond.

Prior to this solution, we worked with Commvault, Veritas, and Veeam. We still work with multiple vendors for our backup and recovery solution.

The initial setup of this solution is simple. The deployment took a couple of days for the components. There are some steps to perform on the network before everything can be installed.

There are three members that make up our administrative team.

During the implementation, we worked with a partner and it was a good experience.

This solution is less expensive than Veeam for us, although it depends on the customer because we get a great discount.

This is a solution that I recommend, although if you have Hyper-V then I would suggest you use Veeam. Veeam is fully integrated with Hyper-V, and there are more features in Veeam.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We are using Avamar as support for the VMware Virtual Machine Backup. The chain blocking is very good. With Dell Avamar, we have integrated with Dell EMC Data Domain. It has a 97% completion ratio. That's the reason we are using Dell EMC Avamar.

The most valuable feature is the disaster recovery. 

Instant recovery is there and it is quite useful. If anything goes wrong, we can initiate troubleshooting within our end, our area, and use it instantly. 

The SQL and Oracle database backup is very user-friendly with the Dell Avamar backup.

It has lots of features, and it's very easy to use.

The setup is very easy.

All of the features we need are there. I don't have a point of contention with the solution. 

That said, the log analysis facilities are very, very bad in Avamar. The backup log analyzer gives us issues. If any backup fails, we can't analyze through logs. The log reading is very difficult with Dell Avamar. Only Dell, their support guys, can access and read the logs. We really need them to add a log analyzer. 

The support is very bad.

We've used the solution for four or five years.

The solution is extremely stable and reliable. There are no bugs or glitches, and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten in terms of scalability and reliability.

Right now, we have 250 customers on the solution, and they have been using it for the last ten to 12 years. 

We have two techs here, however, in a year, if you calculate 365 days in a year, we've hardly had one or two times where we needed support. The product is very stable.

The support is not good at all. It really needs to be better. When you actually need help, they are very poor at assisting. 

Negative

Currently, we are using Commvault and looking at Avamar for clients.

We have experience in Commvault, Veritas, Avamar, Net Protector, and Networker, among others.

The initial setup is very easy. I have had a lot of experience in Avamar, so it is very, very easy to set up for me. If you are a beginner, you may need to take some training first. Once you understand it, then you can install it easily.

The deployment is quick and easy. It's a one-click installation and it only takes two hours. 

Maintenance is easy since no physical presence is required. This setup can be built remotely also.

The solution is expensive. However, there is not any real competitor with the Dell Avamar Data Domain storage type of a feature. It's very unique. Competitors cannot make the same claims about their products.

While it is costly, it's good value and worth the price. 

We are proposing Avamar to our customers and looking for other solutions to compare it to build the case for it. Currently, customers are using Commvault, and we are pushing to Avamar.

We are users and have recommended the solution to clients. We're also a partner and in sales. 

We use both on-premises and public cloud deployments. Depending on the customer's requirements, we can deploy either option. We can use various clouds, including Google, AWS, and Azure. We can use the Dell EMC cloud as well. However, it is more costly.

We wouldn't recommend the solution to everyone since it is pricey. A small or beginner-level customer likely wouldn't be able to afford this type of solution. It's not an entry-level solution. 

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. I would rate them higher if the log analyzer and customer service were better.

When Avamar started out, it used to be for a small to medium environment, but now it's done a lot of changes and it's a good backup solution, especially within your VMware environment.

The most valuable feature is the integration with Data Domain and your VM stacks. One of the good new features is that it integrates with Azure and AWS, and it has the potential to scale out into multiple cloud platforms.

If you don't have DPA, the reporting features are not as user-friendly, so reporting is something that they can improve on.

I've been working with Avamar for close to ten years. 

The solution is very stable. 

If you have Data Domain integrated, the solution is scalable. 

I would rate the tech support for Avamar as a nine out of ten. 

The initial setup is a bit complex, especially if it's a new installation, but once you get the hang of it, it's pretty smooth. 

The length of the deployment depends on your plan, what you need to back up, and if you order Oracle and whatever else you need beforehand. Worst case scenario, it would probably take a week to set up, but if you have all your ducks in a row, it'll be maybe two days, max.

It is not difficult at all to maintain. 

I have previously worked with Networker and Data Domain. I also worked with PPDM. When I logged calls with PPDM, there was always an issue and it would take a day or two for support to come. I don't know if it was a skill issue, but the guy would usually take the information and go and discuss it with guys at a higher level and then come back to me a day or two later.

This is a great product and the integration is easy with other solutions, like the cloud or Data Domain, and it's scalable. I think to some extent Networker used to be the big brother, but now Avamar is taking over that space.

I would rate this solution as a nine out of ten. 

In our company, we handle five different types of data from VME, Windows, SQL and other sources. The complete backup of forty lead machines is implemented daily using Dell Avamar in our organization. 

A huge storage space needs to be bought with Dell Avamar, even when it's unnecessary for an organization. The upgrades of the solution are highly time-consuming; it takes 10 to 12 hours to upgrade Dell Avamar or Dell IDPA. The aforementioned upgrade arrives once a year, but it takes an entire day in our company.

I have been using Dell Avamar for ten years. 

The product offers satisfying stability. The disc failures with the solution are usually replaced within the next way with Archwap discs, and it doesn't affect the stored data. 

The solution can be easily scaled. When your solution is running out of space, you need to apply for a new license and it can be obtained in multiples of 12 TB options. Only one professional in our company uses the solution to manage the IDPA backups. 

Our company has availed tech support, they are quite helpful and efficient. The maximum turnaround time I have witnessed, depending on the issue, is two days; otherwise, the support team sorts my issues in minimal time. I would rate the tech support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

The solution isn't easy to deploy. Dell IDPA comes with numerous tools demanding several configuration requirements. Storage and index manager are inputted in separate VMs. There are multiple components during the initial deployment of Dell Avamar, but client migration and workflow onboarding can be implemented in a straightforward process. Agents need to be stored and new connections have to be found as part of Dell Avamar's deployment. 

The initial setup of Dell Avamar took about three months in our organization. The aforementioned long duration was due to the need to deploy the solution separately for backups and DR purposes and also for arranging network logistics. I deployed the solution with assistance from a Dell partner. 

It's an expensive tool. 

In my experience, Dell solutions are more user-friendly than Commvault. The deployment and management of Dell products are a lot easier than Commvault. There are a lot of complexities in Commvault, but the solution has multiple great features, including troubleshooting. 

The solution's ease of use simplifies the disaster recovery processes in our company. Once implemented, Dell Avamar performs as a complete solution. The advanced DR backup from varying locations is easy to recall using Dell Avamar.  

The backups are performed by the solution with superior stability. The product is easy to manage as frequent troubleshooting is not required and reliable backups are procured. 

The interface of the tool was quite bland previously; it was a Java console, but recently, it got upgraded to a WIP console. The WIP console is easy to comprehend and navigate in Dell Avamar. The product is more expensive when purchased as a stand-alone solution, but with Dell IDPA, the cost is reduced significantly as a suite of tools. With the IDPA bundle, a user pays for only the features used. Dell Avamar requires pre-purchase of the entire storage.

For example, with Dell Avamar, you might need to purchase 36 TB storage when you only require 16 TB. Dell IDPA offers a huge storage device, and payment needs to be made as per the license procured. I have a 96 TB storage solution with Dell IDPA, but I am licensed to use only as much as required; if I am using 12 TB, the cost for only 12 TB needs to be paid. I would rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Potential customers should be aware that the solution is initially provided with 96 TB storage and can possibly be scaled further. I haven't faced any downsides or setbacks with the solution; it's quite easy to use.  

The solution's performance is between satisfactory and good.

It's a stable product.

The solution scales well. 

The performance takes up a lot of resources, unfortunately. We'd like it to be less heavy.

I've been using the solution for four years. 

The performance has been okay. It's pretty stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

The solution scales well. That's not an issue for us.

We have five to seven users on the solution currently.

We do not have plans to increase usage.

We haven't contacted technical support recently. We want it decommissioned right now. 

We are using Microsoft Escort Server for the applications we try to develop. For the active directories and for SharePoint, for those solutions, we are using Microsoft Escort Server.

We are planning to bring on a new solution to replace Avamar.

Before, Dell Avamar, we did not use anything.

Compared to the solution we are looking at now, it seems pretty straightforward to implement. 

It doesn't take such a long time. Within an average amount of time, after you have the product, you can finalize everything within five working days.

Since we are a government institution, commonly, the setup process is actually done by the supplier.

You can get a three-year license if you like. You can subscribe for three years, and if you want a 30-month subscription for the support and service, you can also do that.

It can be expensive. 

We are not using the latest version of the solution right now. 

I would not advise people to use this product. 

Maybe it depends on the case of the organization. The performance is a big issue for us and maybe the support service. If the supplier is enough to provide support to the end user, I might maybe recommend to others, however, it needs a capacity built internally and maybe in the market. That's the big issue with it. Otherwise, if any users have skills to manipulate using it, utilize the resource, I would recommend it. 

I'd rate the solution five out of ten.