IBM Spectrum Protect Reviews

I have found that the most valuable feature is useful documentation and troubleshooting.

I want a better user interface, support, and integrations.

I have been working with IBM Spectrum Protect for four or five years.

The stability of IBM Spectrum Protect is excellent.

We definitely are experiencing scalability.

I would rate technical support with high marks for their service.

Positive

The initial setup had some complexities.

We have found that the pricing is high in our country.

I would rate IBM Spectrum Protect an eight out of ten.

It is an enterprise product.  

We can gain benefit from any advance features (incremental forever, deduplication, compression, etc.).

• Incremental forever: This feature helps us reduce backup time and backup storage space.
• Deduplication and compression: This feature helps us move away from physical tape by using disk.
• Replication: This feature help us to offsite backup data without tape. Data replication is incremental and will send only non-duplicate data.

The user interface (UI) for the admin is still not good. It is way too complicated to manage the product, as we still need to use command line. IBM launched the Operations Center (OC), but there are still functions lacking, especially since we cannot manage all our scheduled tasks by using the GUI. 

There have been stability issues. The product does not exactly have a high availability (HA) solution.

There have been scalability issues. The core product does not support scale out. We needed to create a new system and manage resources separate from the existing one.

I would rate the technical support as a seven out of 10.

We did not use a previous solution.

The initial setup is complex. The solution needs a designer who knows the product in-depth.

The product is low cost. It is very cool when we design it to using licensing based on post capacity.

We compared it to NetBackup. In the end, for design and cost optimization, we chose IBM Spectrum Protect.

The product may look difficult to manage, but if you need enterprise backup software which supports cross platform and you have good design and skills transfer, this product will help reduce costs.

We sell and implement it for customers. It performs very well, though every product has room for improvement.

Our customer's on-premise infrastructure is comprised of flash storage, spinning disks, tape, virtual tape, virtual servers, and snapshots. For storage, we see SAN, iSCSI, NAS, flash, slower disk, SATA, and Near Line (NL) SAS. Some customers use virtual libraries.

• It helps our customers protect their data, especially with stuff like ransomware, compliance, and regulatory requirements. 
• It helps them protect their data, keep it long-term, and feel pretty secure about it, basically sleeping well at night.

It is a proven product. It has a lot of features and capabilities. That is its pro and its con. It makes it a very capable product, but somewhat difficult to use.

Our customers would like to see metadata replication, tearing to tape, and more cloud capabilities.

Stability is great.

Scalability is excellent. It is a solution which needs to be designed. For example, when you design something, you usually have a more scalable solution, because you are building it into the initial plan. Therefore, it is very scalable, but the downside is that it costs money.

The product can scale. I have seen 20 to 40 percent growth per year for my customers for the next three to five years.

My customers do use the technical support, and it's getting less effective, because it is not coming from North America anymore as it used to. Now, it comes from Egypt. The English is not as good, and the support is definitely getting worse.

We live and breathe the initial setup, so the process is good.

Vendors who tend to appear on customers shortlists are Veeam, NetBackup, and Commvault.

I would definitely recommend this product, unless it is pure VMware virtualization backup.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor:

• Reputation
• Reliability
• Cost.

However, cost is probably the biggest factor for most customers.

Our primary use case is to have tape back ups of our open system environments.

It has performed decently. There are certain gaps with the technology where we have issues, such as with our PO and our TO. 

Our infrastructure is on-premise. It is comprised of a tape library (TS3500), tape cartridges, tape drives, and then Spectrum Protect. 

We have three Spectrum Protect servers.

The scheduled backups ensure we meet the requirements for our business, and we keep backups of certain environments.

We have scheduled backups whenever we want.

I am not the one that manages stability on a day-to-day basis on my team, but from what I have seen, it is pretty stable overall. We do encounter issues every once and awhile, just with any product. 

Scalability is poor. As you get to bigger environments, this is where our gaps have been introduced. As we have grown over the past couple of years, the gaps have become more apparent. For example, RTO is a huge gap for us. If we had a disaster scenario and had to recover a bunch of stuff from tape, the RTO would be too long for us.

The more we grow, our gaps will become more apparent. For future needs, as we grow, Spectrum Protect will become a less viable solution for us.

Technical support through IBM whenever we have issues is always pretty good.

I was not involved in the initial setup.

For similar sized companies, I would probably recommend they look at different solutions. For a smaller company, it is probably a viable solution.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: Check to see if it meets certain business requirements.

Incremental forever philosophy.

The benefits are that it's an efficient, scalable, and reliable product that provides what it is supposed to provide.

I would like to see better cloud integration. The big thing is the ability to better integrate with the cloud.

The current cloud integration is good and improving. The conference provided insight to some interesting and useful cloud directions that I was not aware of when we spoke. But in response to your question, I would like to see more (is better - right?) functionality. One notion is to provide self describing backup data which can be picked up by a second Spectrum Protect server in an ad-hoc manner. This could provide a simple means of DR recovery without requiring a DB Restore or existing replication configuration.

Another, similar notion would be an ability to create cloud based backup sets or client images which could be retrieved directly to a client without a Spectrum Protect server. There would be some serious security considerations for both of these ideas and their use case may be too small to realistically consider. I would like to say that I did meet some sharp folks who work in Spectrum Protect Development and they do like to think outside the box and they seriously consider input from their user community.

Stability is very good.

Scalability is excellent.

I've used tech support. Tech support is usually pretty good. Sometimes it takes a while to get past the first level, but once you do, know that they're just doing their job. They are very knowledgeable people who will do everything they can to reach out to you and make sure that they resolve the problem.

Understand how the incremental approach can be better than other solutions. It's a very good solution. It has some improvement to go, but compared to anything else out there, it's the top of the pack.

Incremental Forever backups, Enterprise management, Journal Based backups, policy based, copy storage pools, deduplication and node replication. Also the extreme flexibility and scalability the product offers – most of it done without interrupting production at all. The smallest entry level sized installation can easily grow to large enterprise usages and be migrated across platforms.The product is very client-oriented which supports a lot of different platforms and products, and only have to be upgraded approx. every five years to maintain support.

The incremental forever, TSM for Virtual Environments, deduplication and node replication, has opened up further advantages and solutions for users and customers.

There is always room for improvement. In the fast paced time we live in, unfortunately many products are released before they are complete and mature in every corner.

10 years.

Deployment is easy and simple when few rules are followed and respected. If there is difficulties, it is often caused by lack of resources like short of requirements, willingness or insight.

No, not really - as long as it is designed properly. TSM is very stable and is based on the DB2 database.

When there’s too many clients connecting at the same time, or the platform does not meet requirements.

It is easy to get support from IBM through phone or web-based support portal.

The technical support is great, and they know the product very well.

No, I did not. I have worked other places with other systems. They were all procedure oriented and still are, even though they might have improved since.

If you want a high performing flexible solution, you need some skills with the product. Name standards, design of database, policies and storage needs some decision making.

I guess I don’t qualify for this; we are consultants ourself and are experts. :)

No, none.

Consult experts, listen and follow their advices and meet the requirements.

We have customers and retailers who have been using IBM Spectrum Protect for many, many years, so all our sales over the last five years have been renewable sales. I'm a reseller and partner, so I provide this solution. This solution is deployed on-premises. 

In the past, one of the most valuable features, and the biggest advantage, was the incremental forever feature. Not many other backup vendors provided that. In the pre-virtualization environment, it was very robust and simple technology, especially writing to tape. 

IBM Spectrum Protect could be improved by making the installation easier. Once it's implemented, it's okay. 

IBM started lagging behind when things started moving to storage and cloud-based solutions. Even though they've recently released updates that give cloud-based protection, personally, I still believe they are not up to par with the likes of Rubrik. 

The entire product is a little bit clumsy because they have co-joined two different products, so it's complex. Even from a sales/explaining to people what it does point of view, it's complex. Whereas, if you take more current products, it's a single box solution. You reel it in, you fire it up, you do a couple of points and clicks, and off you go, whereas the IBM system is seriously complex. There's a lot of training involved and it's a massively difficult product to sell at this point in time. 

I have been working with IBM Spectrum Protect for over 20 years. 

This solution is stable. 

This solution is scalable. 

IBM support has always been reasonably good. They've got a worldwide network and they've been doing it for many, many years, so I can't fault them from a support point of view. Whenever there had been a problem, we had various people working on resolving it. 

IBM Spectrum Protect is very complex to install—it's not a simple installation at all, which is why there's always professional services attached to a Spectrum Protect sale. 

The amount of technical people you will need depends on the size of the environment, but in an environment with about 800 VMs and a couple of Unix machines, you need at least two administrators. 

We implement this solution for customers. 

Customers need to pay for licensing in order to use IBM Spectrum Protect. The customers that have been using it for a long time are okay and happy with it. From a cost point of view, it's better for them to renew their licenses than to go through the difficult process of changing a backup product in their environment, and migrate from one product to another. 

Currently, we have moved away from Spectrum Protect, and towards Rubrik. Rubrik has been my product of choice over the last two years, at least. Even with the recently released updates that give cloud-based protection, I still don't believe IBM Spectrum Protect is up to par with the likes of Rubrik. Of the customers who still use IBM Spectrum Protect, we only have three left—there used to be a lot more. 

I currently rate IBM Spectrum Protect a six out of ten. 

The advice I would give to anyone considering starting to use IBM Spectrum Protect is to use Rubrik instead. I've always been a very big proponent of Spectrum Protect—years back, I used to be a trainer for IBM as well, so I really like the product—but at the moment, I just think there are other solutions that work better. 

We primarily use the solution for security purposes. We implement this solution for many of our clients.

Due to the rapidly provision new server in my organization, the backup resource needs to add more also. But IBM Spectrum Protect can help me to optimize the backup resource. 

The backup aspect of the solution is very good. The solution allows for incremental backups forever. It saves your backup files while also saving space.

The product is quite stable.

The API is simple to integrate into a custom application.

You need to use command line rather than the console. It would be better if users didn't have to use command line in order to use the solution.

Technical isn't so great. It's a bit slow in terms of response. They need to get back to their users a lot faster.

The licensing isn't very clear. They should work to simply or clarify the cost structure.

More than 10 years

We have enjoyed very good stability while using this solution. It's reliable and seems to be free of bugs and glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. We've been happy with it.

We have a pretty big setup. There are users across ten servers. I'm not sure exactly how many there are in total.

Technical support is a bit too slow. They really should be more responsive.

There is no remote support.

As long as you have a bit of experience, you shouldn't have any trouble with the initial setup. I didn't handle it directly, however. We had someone who did it and he was quite knowledgable. Due to that, the deployment was pretty quick. He had is up and running in three or four hours. 

We handled some aspects ourselves, however, we did enlist some outside help as well for the initial implementation.

The licensing process is very unclear and a bit complicated. Many of our clients have trouble figuring it out. They'll buy a license and then they find out the limits are wrong. 

We're an implementor.

Overall, we've had a good experience with the solution and I would easily recommend this product to other organizations.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate it at a seven.