Dell RecoverPoint Reviews

Complete out of band block replication with EMC storage arrays (such as VNX, VMAX, & VPLEX). It's seamless integration into VMware's Site Recovery Manager is very useful.

We have been able to achieve a very low RTO & RPO with near real-time replication policies & adequately sized journals for a limited recovery time requirement to bring systems online as well as a great recovery point to roll back to in the event of a disaster or outage.

The new Gen5 appliances have adopted the Unisphere management interface & it is written for Adobe Flash, which in my experience, is very slow & makes administration cumbersome at times. The Unisphere interface is missing some components that were taken out of the Gen3 Recover Management console such as the ability to refresh views & rescan splitters to pull in new storage on the fly without having to cancel a CG creation mid-flight.

Deployments with VNX & VPLEX are pretty simple as the splitter is installed on the SPs for VNX & on the directors for the VPLEX. The problem came into play when we began using RecoverPoint with VMAX. We discovered that the write splitting takes place at every single director port where a write occurs so in order to capture all writes, you have to zone the RPAs to every single FA port that has volumes mapped to them & are in use for RecoverPoint. It was a technical "gotcha" but we were able to rectify it.

Only when we discovered that the zoning requirements for VMAX were different than standard VNX deployments did we run into issues; however, we were able to quickly resolve that issue.

This solution is quite scalable. The maximum number of nodes per RP clusteris 16 so there's no issue there. The caveats associated with that are that you will need additional FC ports (by a factor of 4) on your storage fabric to support each new RPA. Also, if you are increasing the number of nodes in your cluster you are likely replicating more storage, in which case you will need adequate RecoverPoint capacity licensing to do based on the size of your work load.

Customer Service: Good at time but also questionable at times. EMC has grown to such a big enterprise they are struggling with their support sector.Technical Support: Good at time but also questionable at times. EMC has grown to such a big enterprise they are struggling with their support sector.

We were not using any other replication technology at that time but we are currently looking at Zerto as an alternative to RecoverPoint due to cost constraints & easibility of use of the Zerto product.

It was complicated learning the configuration on the VMAX array due to each director port performing the write split operation. VNX & VPLEX arrays do not operate this way so it is much easier to configure & manage RP when using VNX or VPLEX.

If through a vendor team, how would you rate their level of expertise? Implemented with direct involvement from EMC professional services.

We did not evaluate others before RecoverPoint. It was a package deal with our VNX purchases.

Make 100% sure it meets your needs & integrates properly. Otherwise you could end up paying additional licensing fees to make it work & you could also be put in a situation where the deployment is overly complicated due to the infrastructure you're using it in.

I mainly use RecoverPoint as a disaster recovery site plan.

RecoverPoint's most valuable feature is the automatic failover.

RecoverPoint's WAN optimization could be improved.

I've been using RecoverPoint for almost six years

RecoverPoint is very stable.

RecoverPoint is scalable.

Dell's technical support is fast and efficient.

The initial setup was very simple and took around a week.

RecoverPoint came free as an add-on to the PowerProtect Data Manager backup software from Dell EMC.

RecoverPoint can be depended on as your only disaster recovery solution without any need to mix different types of failover systems. I would rate RecoverPoint as nine out of ten.

Hybrid Cloud

Our customers are using this solution. We basically use the solution for DR, Disaster Recovery.

The setups that we have in place are great. We use the site replication, the Continuous Remote Replication. That's quite useful for us. 

The stability is good.

the initial setup is straightforward.

One advantage of the RecoverPoint is the ability to recover to a point in time. You also have so many images and you are able to recover them.

The product is quite mature.

The solution is now Flash-based, which is better. they moved away from Java.

The management capabilities are excellent. 

The product has a new user interface, which is very nice.

There's always room for improvement, although I don't have a specific example on hand.

The cost of the solution is pretty high. The licensing costs may affect a company's ability to scale.

I've used the solution for five years or so. It's been a while. 

We have found the solution to be extremely stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze.

The solution is scalable. The only downside is it might be a little bit expensive in terms of being limited in terms of the consistency of groups that you can create. The licensing tends to be a little bit pricey for the region in which we are operating. 

I haven't needed technical support and therefore cannot speak to how helpful or supportive they are.

What we used to have was not exactly the same. However, from a storage point of view, we've used some things such as IBM Metro Mirror, SVC for implementing similar solutions. Instead of using the additional RecoverPoint, we used Global Mirror for continuous change volumes. We also used Metro Mirror. 

We used these other products in slightly different scenarios - not in exactly the same way we are using Dell.

With the Dell EMC products, the implementation is quite straightforward. You have the implementation procedure. You can actually generate details to guide you through the implementation if you're not familiar with the process. From that aspect, it is fine. There's not really an issue. 

I am able to handle the implementation for clients. 

The licenses are expensive.

I handle the installation and support of the product for clients.

I'd rate the solution at a seven out of ten. I'm pretty happy with it. It's a good solution.

Our clients use the product for replication.

The solution provides continuous data protection.

New products like PowerStore do not support RecoverPoint. The product should provide integration with new products.

I have been using the solution for almost eight years.

The product is stable. I rate the stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the solution’s scalability an eight out of ten.

The initial setup is very easy. I rate the ease of setup a ten out of ten.

On average, the deployment takes at least three hours.

The product is fairly priced. I rate the pricing a seven out of ten.

Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

On-premises

There are two features that are very good. One is that it doesn't use a lot of bandwidth. The other is that you can recover all the way up to a certain particular moment.

The solution normally supports only specific types and amounts of storage. If it could be increased to support much larger amounts or a wider range, it could fetch a bigger market. If the solution could work with other storage solutions, it would be better.

I would like them to add automation features across the solution.

I've been using the solution for more than five years.

The solution is very stable. Once it's installed, many customers forget they even have it.

The solution is very scalable. As long as you have room for the storage, it can scale up to meet it.

The solution is very simple to implement. Even a customer could do it. You don't have to be too technical.

The solution isn't too expensive. There are no other fees above licensing. Once you buy the license, because the license is attached to the storage that you are replicating, it's a one-off price.

I would recommend the product. It's good, especially for those who want to do replication and don't have a lot of money. It's a very good product and it uses very little bandwidth.

I would rate the solution eight out of ten.

Main feature we use is remote (async) data replication, over IP, over a distance approx 300 kms.

• Data replication with Recoverpoint over a long distance without FC is simple and delivers a cost reduction (ethernet DWDM is cheaper than fiber)
• Our site disaster recovery plan was simplified by scripting the failover procedure.
• Offloading the storage array with replication tasks was very useful to us because in the past our experience with Mirrorview /A icm with high data change rates was sometimes problematic.

I am not familiar with improvements in Recoverpoint v4.xx, so I don't know exactly what the latest improvements are.

• EMC Recoverpoint/SE
• Software version 3.5 SP1
• Bi-directional data replication between two VNX5500
• Total amount of replicated data 25 TB.
• We've been using it now for about 3 years. (same hardware, some newer software versions)

No, together with EMC support personal we had a good deployment. The sizing was done well, the only puzzle was to set up the consistency groups in the right way and spread them out over the Recoverpoint nodes. In the end this was done by 'trial and error'. But later on we would use the commandline to monitor the loadbalancing.

No problems at all.

No, though some CG's (mostly VMWare ESX) are busier than others. Overall performance is good. Each datacenter site consists of two nodes (local cluster).

Customer Service: Very good, EMC did support us to implement it well and gave useful instructions/ lessons to help to maintain it well.Technical Support: Excellent

Yes, EMC Mirrorview /A and /S. Because of relocation of our datacenters the distance between them increased enormously because of the large distance and the availability of Ethernet only between the sites.

Initial setup was straightforward and data replication did work very quickly. The main puzzle was to seize the replication sets and consistency groups. Our host environment is rather complex. (Open VMS, Linux, AIX, Windows, ESX)

Vendor team, their expertise was excellent.

Actually I do not know but due to merging and organizational changes the solution will run for three years total.

My advice is very positive. There is a good plug-in VMWare vCenter for SRM, stretched Windows clusters, local replication feature, granular level in Point In Time Copies.

A traditional way of data protection is to perform backups. With a backup solution, we can implement Recovery Point Objectives (RPOs). However, we are not really sure how to reach Recovery Time Objectives (RTOs), especially when those RTOs have minimal values.

With RecoverPoint, we can "instantly mount" an image Point in Time in case of a problem. The RTO was improved, for sure.

Continuous Data Protection and Remote Data Protection are the most valuable features:

• Continuous Data Protection: Enables the rolling back of volume states to a point in time within seconds.
• Remote Data Protection: Permits the replication of environments in a synchronous or asynchronous way with minimal bandwidth consumption.

RecoverPoint journals consume a lot of storage to obtain a large RPO.

I have used this product for three years.

We did not encounter any stability issues.

We did not encounter any scalability issues.

We have not called support for three years. The technical documentation is good, so I would give it a rating of 9/10. I am not sure that technical support is perfect.

We used to deploy Oracle Data Guard for replicating Oracle, but RecoverPoint can replicate other environments because it acts on the storage side.

We had an easy setup. Just remember to size your storage well.

I recommend using the CL licensing mode.

Other replication solutions are specific to products (Data Guard for Oracle, VMware replicator for VMware), but RecoverPoint can replicate multiple products.

RecoverPoint acts on a block level and it needs an EMC Splitter to work. If your storage arrays are not EMC, then you need to virtualize your storage via VPLEX before acquiring RecoverPoint.