OpenText Data Protector Reviews

From a data protection standpoint, HPE Data Protector reduced our and our customer’s recovery time. It also gave them an advantage in the industry in that they are able fall back quicker.

Reduced backup times, and it helped with security mitigation from a data protection standpoint.

I don't use it today on a regular basis, but there are always feature improvements that our customers are looking for, such as more integration from an API perspective with different applications and cloud platforms. Also, broader integration to the ecosystem as it relates to the cloud and the application API.

We didn't have too many problems. It was fairly stable.

We contacted technical support a couple of times during upgrades, but I wouldn't say that the issues were anything out of the ordinary or systemic.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward. We did not have any difficulties.

There's always a bake-off process between competing products regarding feature sets, like Symantec. Customers typically go through a list of criteria as they relate to applications, and how they're trying to protect data, such as how it's encrypted at rest and in flight. These are decisions we all have to make. Other issues are whether there was encryption inflate, was it encrypted at rest, how many GO's did I need to protect that data, and what the replication scheme looked like.

With respect to HPE data protection, you need to do the mapping with respect to what you're looking for. From my own personal experience, HPE was a pretty seamless install from an operational perspective.

But, I never want to be involved in data protection again. It's a thankless job, but a necessary evil.

We don't use Micro Focus widely. It's used as a backup-to-tape system. Overall, we have about five users because a couple of our clients use it as well.  

I like that Micro Focus keeps a separate catalog of our data. 

Many of our users complain about the GUI. You still need to rely on the command line interface. Because it originated as a Unix system, Data Protector is still a command line-driven solution, which makes it seem rather dated compared to systems that are built around a GUI from day one. It doesn't affect the functionality, but some people don't find it user-friendly.

I have been using Micro Focus for almost 20 years. 

Data Protector is stable.

Data Protector is highly scalable.

We don't use Micro Focus support often, but it has been pretty good when we needed it.

We also use Acronis Backup, but it's hard for me to compare because I don't have as much experience with Acronis relative to Data Protector. It's also one of those difficult situations because we haven't really pushed Data Protector to its limits. It has a lot of functionality that we don't use. We tend to use more of Acronis' functionality, so it would be unfair to compare them.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward because it was historically a Unix system. It takes about half a day to install. 

Data Protector has an annual license, and it's reasonably priced. 

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector eight out of 10. It's a highly stable solution that does the job. To use this product, you must comfortable with a command line interface, and many people today can't deal with anything that's not GUI. You need to be in control of the command line to use it properly. 

It works excellently only with Oracle.

It has a lot of undeveloped functions like window searching and patent searching, and within the main backup processes like VMware and Microsoft Exchange.

It's completely not user-friendly, and it has no built-in antivirus software. In my opinion, Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution.

I would like to see the quick search bar working without complexities and would like to see the building reporting. I would like to see it deny the architecture of the client and server and work directly via APIs.

I would like to see Micro Focus Data Protector be completely web based with fast HTML files. That would reduce a lot of installation time with all those script integrations and so on.

It would be good to have automation of the broken backups. For example, NetBackup had a great feature when the backup broke for some reason. It would automatically try to resume it eight or nine times and only then would give a fail error.

The stability depends on the environment because there can be some special cases where Micro Focus Data Protector is not stable at all.

The technical support from Micro Focus is terrible in terms of the quality and problem solving. For example, let's assume that something went wrong when running Data Protector in a large infrastructure environment with permanent backups going on. When we contact technical support, they will ask us to provide logs. However, if we turn the bug mode on it will affect all of the systems, and we simply will not be able to collect the requested logs for that purpose. So, it becomes impossible to provide the necessary log files because we cannot stop the critical backups.

I have some experience with NetBackup. It was more stable, user-friendly, and had the best support. However, the decision makers decided that Micro Focus Data Protector was the better way to go, and we had to switch.

As for the initial setup, it's perfect for small- and medium-sized companies.

The pricing is acceptable for enterprise level companies, but it's not acceptable for small- and medium-sized businesses. Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution, and it should cover small- and medium-sized businesses with acceptable prices.

I would advise you not to use Micro Focus Data Protector and would rate it at four on a scale from one to ten.

The primary use case is mainly for data protection for both short-term and long-term retention. We are resellers of Micro Focus and I am a storage and backup engineer.

Many colleagues complain about poor and complicated implementation of VMWare granular recovery

The feature I like the most is the deduplication implementation with CAPA. It's very good. 

I think the VMware backup integration and the cloud recovery is lacking. I also found it difficult to implement the granular recovery solution with Micro Focus for both VMware integration backups and for exchange integration backups. Implementing this solution was a big challenge. Other products like Veeam, or NetBackup have a simpler and more user friendly solution than Micro Focus. Implementation really should be more straightforward. I'd like to see stronger integrations, and an easier setup for granular recovery. It's a feature that plays a great role for data protection.

I've been using this solution for 11 years. 

Stability depends on the platform. It's quite stable on a Linux platform but I've had bad experience in the past with Windows. I don't know if there is more stability with the new releases, but we abandoned the Windows platform for the core services of Data Protector. We're using Linux.

The scalability is okay although there are issues regarding the database. If you're installing the solution in a physical machine, and you have to extend the database, it's not so easy.  With virtual machines, it's easy to extend it. Scalability depends on the type of installation. I suggest deploying the core as a manager that contains the database, then if you need to scale up storage, you can easily extend the virtual disk in a short time.

Technical support has not been good recently and in several cases, I have found the solution myself. I would expect support to be able to manage these issues. 

We currently also use NetBackup and Veritas which are both more open to other systems. There is also the Veritas fast solution for appliances together with the pro. With Micro Focus, you need to contact the vendor for equipment for the storage device, and for the new servers and the physical middle servers. NetBackup and Veritas only have one vendor and we get everything from them. It makes it easier to prepare bonds and to design a solution for customers. Veritas also has integration for cloud-native backup, and we have integration for the backup storage before the middle server. There is also good integration with VMware and Data Protector. Micro Focus is not like that. We need three different vendors to provide the same solution.

The time it takes to set up a virtual machine with the software operating system is very quick if it's a new installation. But if it's an upgrade, it is quite difficult, because it takes time to convert the database to the new user. The performance of this product in the Windows platform is not great so we usually don't install it. With VMware, it is easy to attach the kit, the package ISO file. Then the setup is quite easy. In that sense, it's like the other products for this. It's probably more difficult than implementing in a network environment, with firewalls in between middle servers and clients, or between some manager and the new servers.

Implementation was in-house

This solution is a manager service. We resell this product with the manager service in our private cloud that we provide the customers so for us, it's a good price. However, I do think they should lower the price as there are other, better technologies available.

EMC Networker

I would rate this solution a six out of 10. 

We run all of the bank applications on it. 

The solution allows us to be able to backup and exchange directly to backup Microsoft Exchange.

The solution is not intuitive enough. I think they should work on the user experience and the graphical interface. These can be a lot better.

I would give the stability a rating of seven out of ten. There are still some improvements to be made in terms of ensuring stability in the product.

Scalability is very good. Right now, we have ten users, including backup administrators, compliance, and audit. The backups run every day.

I would rate technical support as six out of ten. They don't respond in a timely manner when you report issues.

The initial setup was complex. It's because it's not user-friendly. I think they can work a lot harder at making the solution more intuitive. Deployment took about two weeks. For deployment and maintenance, we only needed two people.

We used a reseller that helped with the deployment. They were fantastic. I liked them a lot.

For us, the solution is bundled with other HP licenses, so I can't say how much the licensing is exactly. There are no other costs above the standard licensing fee, however.

We are using the on-premises version of the solution.

In terms of advice that I would give to those thinking about using the solution, I'd say this: it's a very good application. It does the job. It can be better, but it does the job. It does everything any basic backup application should do. The interface could be more intuitive and more colorful to help with its ease of use.

I would rate the solution seven out of ten.

We rely on generating daily reports on our stocks for auditing purposes. Those reports are useful; so I would say they are the most valuable feature.

It is also very good that you can use it either from the command line or from a GUI. It depends on who is using it, what they want to do with it, and on their preferences.

Our data footprint was constantly growing. We couldn't back it up according to the backup schedules we had, so we needed a solution for this.

We have used Data Protector for as long as I have been at the organization. We're a huge HPE house, so all of our technology for backups is HPE. We were hoping to leverage as much of our current HPE technology as possible by keeping all our technology and software within one software house. Over the years, the ratio of capabilities in terms of what we wanted compared to what it was able to give us has changed.

A couple of years ago, I said that the reporting wasn't sufficient. There should be better reporting within Data Protector, rather than making you turn to an additional HPE software application.

I think that no company can get reporting right. Whatever software I use, we are always looking for reports that they just can't provide.

Our data footprint has grown massively, and we're asking a lot more of it than it can do. When I started back in 2012, it was perfectly fine. It was the hardware that was not capable of providing us with what we wanted, not the software. Now it seems that the hardware is providing us with what we want, but the software is not.

If I base my evaluation on the conversation I had recently with my SME for backups, the software is not very stable. Maybe that's because it is integrated with the hardware layer. I would say that it runs, but there are always a lot of errors. The software's stable, but the actual components are not stable for doing what we want.

We have scaled out and, therefore, needed the software to scale with that technology. We have a global backup solution, so it has been scalable in that respect.

Based on a recent conversation, technical support has been working to fix a problem for six months, but still haven’t actually fixed it. With the process that he says he had to go through, they need to look at it, and start getting their third-line engineers working directly with the customer much faster.

The professional services department is excellent in terms of the setup and configuration. We updated the hardware technology to work with the software. I definitely couldn’t fault them in that respect. The issues are with troubleshooting and when you need support.

We are looking at other vendors now. With the announcement that the software layer is leaving HPE, we need to make sure we can protect our assets; so, unfortunately, we will be looking at other backup vendors.

• We had a chat with Veritas because we are already a Veritas customer. We are going to check with them first because we already have that relationship with them.
• We looked at an offshoot called Navigator. We felt this was going to give us everything that we wanted from a reporting point of view. I had to provide reports for our stocks, but I also wanted to provide reports for our CEO on how our data footprint was changing. Navigator was incredibly expensive.

If you’re looking to move from one software to another, you need to understand how well it can be integrated with your legacy information and be backward compatible. If it’s not backward compatible, you must be given a clear strategy or process to follow.

From an auditing point of view, or a needs discovery point of view, the most important thing to look for in a vendor is the capacity to understand your environment; and provide you with the right solution and a process to follow.

Go out to your network and ask people. If you've worked in IT, I always say it is worthwhile reaching out to old colleagues. If you're still in contact with them, ask them what they are doing, why they are using that software, and what the benefits are of using that software. You're going to understand more from someone’s first-hand experience.

A company can come in and say, “We have all these customers that can be references for us; but they just pick really small customers who it has been easy working with. They're not going to tell you about a customer like us who has been currently having lots of difficulty. So I'd say: Use your network and ask them if they can help answer your questions.

The best thing I find with Data Protector as opposed to other products was the inter-compatibility with all different OSs. It's very OS agnostic; doesn't matter whether it be Linux or Windows or AIX or whatever. It just seems to work. That's useful, very useful. The GUI interface is very intuitive as well, I find. It's very easy to use.

The centralization of all the backup data is a valuable asset, and the ability to recover data quickly. It doesn't happen very much these days, to be fair. It's not very often we have to recover. We don't use Data Protector for data recovery. It does have that functionality, but because we're a 95% virtualized company, we use VMware replications for DR. But there is DR functionality within it. It needs work. It's not a simple thing to roll out. Of course now, it offers de-duplication which is big. The backup functionality is very, very good.

One of the things that they need to look at is the scheduler. At the moment, there are two ways to schedule a backup. There's a simple scheduler and an advanced scheduler. You have to do one or the other. Using the advanced scheduler is the only way to prioritize the backups. I'd like to see that merged into just one single scheduler that allows you to prioritize the backups. At the moment, backups come in and they queue with no priorities. For example, if you have four backups queuing, you can't say I want backup one to run before backup two before backup three. If they're in the queue, you can separate them with start times, but if they're all in the queue and all their start times have passed, any of them can start in no particular order. So that's one thing I would like to see.

I haven't looked at the VMware integration yet, but I'm just about to. I understand the VMware integration is quite good. That's obviously an essential thing for us.

We have been using it for about 7 or 8 years. We started at version 6. We're at version 9 now. Version 9 is very stable.

It's very stable. It wasn't in its earlier guises. But now it is.

It is scalable. It's not as scalable as HPE would like to think it is. I think the biggest problem we have with backups now is network utilization. Most backups will throttle your network, because you're shipping a lot of data around. Because of that, I've had to break up the whole service into smaller segments in order to back it up more easily. You've only got 24 hours in a day, ultimately, so you can only backup so much data in that time. That was a problem we were having, where backups were taking more than a day to run. As we scale, the backups are more challenging time-wise. Now, there are ways around that. I'm just about to start a new project on Data Protector to look in at the VMware plugin because we are virtualized. I believe that will help a lot with my network throughput.

The technical support for Data Protector is good actually. I have no problems with that. We log calls, and they get back to us straightaway. I've had a couple of P1s that have moved around the world with the time zones, so it's always been worked on. That's been good.

At various companies that I've worked for, I've used different backup solutions. I've used Veritas NetBackup and Backup Exec. That was a proprietary backup. They're the two main ones that I've used recently.

The most important criteria to me when selecting a certain vendor is not so much the vendor as the product itself.

I've been involved in redesign and all the upgrades, not the initial setup. It's quite straightforward.

I know that Veeam is becoming a market leader in backup software. But, I haven't recommended anybody else but HPE. It just works for us at the moment, so no need to change.

The most important criteria to me when selecting a vendor is not so much the vendor as the product itself.

I would recommend it, absolutely. Just check your network can cope with the product and the backup throughput.

We use Micro Focus Data Protector to back up all our infra servers, plus file share and some VM backup.

The normal file system backup is easy to manage, and our success rate is quite high.

The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements. Furthermore, if we want to change something, we have to run it through all the policies one by one. They don't have a central place to modify and apply it to all the policies. The virtual environment backup could also be better.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for four years.

It's a stable solution, but every upgrade is such a headache. For example, we currently have to upgrade to a new version, but somehow the connection to storage isn't happening because there are issues with the library.

Micro Focus Data Protector is scalable. It's quite simple as we can just add on more media to fulfill all the requirements. Right now, a few thousand people use this solution in our organization.

We had a few cases through email, but one pain point is that they always go through to level one, go to level two, and so on. They spend a lot of time explaining what's going on before the problem is solved. 

Previously, we used Veritas Backup Exec. So, compared to Veritas Backup Execs, it's a little bit cheaper.

The initial setup is quite straightforward, like Master Media Server. 

Our licensing is on a capacity basis.

I wouldn't recommend Micro Focus Data Protector to be used as a cloud backup. But for on-premise and file share use, it's quite okay.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Micro Focus Data Protector a seven.