VMware Live Recovery Reviews

Our initial deployment of VMware's Site Recovery Manager in conjunction with PostgreSQL for automotive sales, and also involved integrating SRM with HP's triple storage systems. It leverages background storage replication to ensure stable and reliable business continuity.

Stability and ease of installation, along with straightforward maintenance through the graphical user interface, make this solution a practical choice. It eliminates the need for complex compliance requirements, making it a highly effective solution.

The primary site lacks adequate equipment, such as power backup and cooling, which can lead to downtime during issues like power outages or overheating.

We have been working with it for six years now.

It is a highly reliable solution.

It's important to note that the scalability of the solution should align with the customer's needs. If they anticipate increased workloads and data, they can easily scale up their storage systems. Site Recovery Manager simplifies this process, as it doesn't necessitate extensive reconfiguration, instead, it involves adding or extending data links in the replication groups, making it a straightforward and manageable process. It is well-suited for mid-sized and small companies that don't have extensive data replication needs. It's a practical choice for businesses in need of a reliable and scalable disaster recovery solution that matches their specific requirements.

VMware offers excellent support for its products, and we haven't encountered any noteworthy issues or negative experiences in our interactions with their support team.

Positive

In addition to our existing setup, we use backup software, Veeam, for replication on the disaster recovery side. With Veeam, we replicate virtual machines from the primary site to the secondary site. It is particularly advantageous because it doesn't require the same storage type on both the primary and secondary sides, which gives us flexibility and allows us to mix and match storage types if needed. One of the key benefits of Veeam is its ease of management, making it a valuable resource for replication. I believe it has a promising future, especially for handling data replication in various sectors. We also employ Veeam in the banking system to replicate data from different strategies across multiple departments. Its performance in replicating virtual machines is superior to SRM. The choice between SRM and Veeam largely depends on your storage environment and replication needs.

The initial setup was easy and straightforward.

The implementation process typically involves setting up VMware, configuring virtual machines, creating storage blocks, and installing the necessary components. For VMware to work seamlessly with the storage, a connector from the storage vendor is installed within the VMware environment, and once this is in place, replication can begin. In cases where there's a substantial amount of data to replicate, and the customer lacks a robust network link between sites, a physical transfer of data is undertaken. This involves physically moving storage devices from the primary site to the DR site, initiating the replication process, and then returning the storage to its original location once replication is completed. The replication process usually takes around two weeks, which is considered suitable for customers with relatively uncomplicated needs. For smaller customers with ten machines or so, replication is organized into groups based on different data sources on the storage system. Implementation requires the involvement of one or two technical experts who are well-versed in the equipment and storage systems. Monitoring the system is primarily the responsibility of the customer, with one or two IT personnel overseeing the process. Email notifications are often set up to keep track of system performance and any issues that may arise.

It is reasonably priced, and its cost hasn't been a significant factor in our implementation. We utilize various licensing options, but we typically purchase licenses upfront, avoiding monthly or yearly payment structures. We often opt for multi-year agreements, and if technical support isn't required, it allows us to maintain the same number of virtual machines and central traffic capacity.

If you're dealing with a more stable and homogeneous storage environment and have technical reasons to favor SAN, then SRM, which is tightly integrated with the storage vendor, may have some advantages. Veeam is a better solution when you have a mix of heterogeneous storage types, multiple sites, and diverse data replication requirements, as it operates independently of the storage application. For larger customers, such as those in the banking sector with diverse storage systems and extensive data replication needs, Veeam might be preferred. While it might have a slightly higher price point compared to SRM, it offers more flexibility and scalability. SRM, on the other hand, is well-suited for smaller customers with simpler storage environments and a smaller number of servers. It's more straightforward to configure and manage in such scenarios. Overall, I would rate VMware SRM ten out of ten.

We use SRM to invoke DR and to move workloads across the DR side.

The thing I like the most about SMR is the reduced cost of management.

VMware SRM lacks certain functions that other platforms have, such as better prioritization of allocation of resources and Boot profiles.

I've been using VMware SRM for a long time, almost ten years.

It's a good and stable product. They do a lot of testing.

I think it's scalable. When you work for big organizations, I don't think that's much of a problem. There are multiple and fairly large clusters. That's one of the ways that we reduce cost because we are building things like sequel clusters. Approximately 5,000 people use SRM at our company.

The technical support is great. VMware staff help with deploying and testing. In terms of building storage clusters, metro clusters, stretch clusters across sites so that, you get all of the benefits of a local cluster, but they're deployed between the lines and the DR side. It's a fantastic technology and VMware provides you with their best people.

Positive

Before VMware SRM, we were using Veritas Volume Manager and Veritas Replication Manager for stand-alone. When we went to virtualize, we moved to SRM. I did a lot of work with IBM PowerVM and it had some nice features. It had things such as better prioritization of allocation of resources and Boot profiles where you could put one VM across another so that it grabbed the resources. You could do things such as have thin DR VMs without much allocation of CPU or memory, and then as you boot them, they start to grab all of that automatically from all of the non-prod. Functions like that were quite good in Power VM, which aren't quite as present in the VMware world. PowerVM is extremely expensive to use and that's why everyone is shifting towards commodity computers.

I'm an architect so I did not install SRM myself, but I think there were no issues with installing it since it's a pretty standard tool nowadays. It does not require much maintenance. We are still running some old versions of VMware as there was a challenge around Oracle licensing. We are moving the Oracle workloads off of it now and addressing the architecture to get rid of the copies of the legacy versions of VMware. 

SRM is quite pricey and the license is renewed annually. I think that they do a lot of ULAs, the universal license agreements, where you pay a set amount and get unlimited usage. That's how it usually goes with big companies. Occasionally, they do true-ups to work out how much you've got and whether ULA pricing is appropriate. It might be too expensive for smaller organizations.

I would advise new users to start off with manual processes and document exactly what they want to come up with in the right order. Get your IT continuity plan defined very closely and with a great amount of detail. Then start to automate with your SRM tooling to make sure that things are brought up in the right order and ensure that if one service fails and you need to bring another one across for latency purposes, you really understand all of those requirements before you start to just implement SRM and marching on without really understanding how the services tie together and the dependencies between them.

Overall, I would rate SRM an eight out of ten.

It was working very well with VMware since it's a VMware product. We didn't have any issues. It was quite smooth when doing drills, when we were trying to recover VMs from other sites.

There's an option where you can test VM, when you can test the drill. That option was very valuable.

It's easy to set up. 

The solution is scalable. 

It is stable. 

Technical support can take some time to respond. We'd like a faster response. 

In the previous year, we were using SRM, and then we shifted to another software called CR2. We're replacing SRM. However, we used SRM for a few years. It's been about four years. 

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

The product can scale well. It's not an issue. 

We have three or four people on the solution right now.  They are mostly infrastructure engineers. 

We don't have plans to increase usage. 

Support is good, although we would like them to be faster. 

Positive

We had a simple vertical setup. We have VMware engineers at our disposal, and their expertise made it easy.

The deployment took one to two days. It was not complicated. We only needed one or two people to handle the deployment and maintenance tasks. They are engineers and junior staff. 

We pay a yearly licensing fee. 

We have some nodes which are still running VMware. We currently do have some nodes still running VMware like ESXi 7.0, however, not for production. It's right for testing purposes.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten. 

I'd recommend the solution as it is very stable and does the job. 

We used VMware SRM mainly for the DC-DR configuration.

The most valuable feature of the solution is the integration part, along with the subsequent hardware.

It would be better if we could get more reporting features in VMware SRM.

Wherever we have deployed the solution, we haven't faced any issues with stability.

I rate the solution an eight to nine out of ten for stability.

I have four to five customers for VMware SRM.

The solution’s initial setup is not very complex.

I don't see a challenge concerning the solution's deployment process. The deployment can be done once the design is finished. Two engineers are more than enough to deploy the solution.

VMware SRM is an expensive solution, and users need to pay extra costs in addition to the standard licensing fees.

The implementation of VMware SRM helps with the overall business resiliency perspective. We are still using the virtualization layer for the application, which becomes closely integrated with the solution provided. So, that's a benefit to any organization. Moreover, the solution gives you a single dashboard through which you can look at everything.

Overall, I rate the solution a seven to eight out of ten.

Virtual Machine Recovery during DR situation, with automation and easy to use menus and options.

Earlier, in case of disaster or server failure we had to rebuild the whole server/virtual machine from scratch. This rebuilding process used to take anywhere from close to a day or more, affecting production time.

With VMware vSphere Replication and SRM combined, we were able to cut down outage windows to a maximum of one hour.

We are making good use of replicated VMs for testing of OS/application update, before applying same to the production environment.

In my view, if VMware comes up with an appliance-based solution like vCenter Server (which was also Windows-based), it will be much easier for deployment. It will also save Windows Server Operating System licensing costs, which for most of the organization recur annually.

Around five years (maybe more, I can't recollect exactly).

Not really for use and operation, but a version upgrade is a real problem. When upgrading to the latest version, there are always problems with the upgrade, normal functioning etc. Doing an upgrade is lot of hard work. Always had to rely on next minor upgrade.

VMware needs to do better software testing before release.

No.

Very good. They are very eager to support the customer and, more than just wanting to close the ticket, they strive for customer satisfaction.

Previously we were not using any DR solution, but we are using Veeam along with SRM.

SRM is being used for far-end recovery whereby the DR site is in another city.

Veeam is being used for near-end recovery, whereby the DR server is located in the same datacenter. This is useful for VM level recovery, where only a VM or handful VMs or vDisks are affected.

It was pretty straightforward. We kept the DC and DR servers together in the same datacentre during initial setup and VM syncing. After setup and syncing completion, we moved the DR server to the DR site.

Compare to hardware-based replication, I think software based replication is best and cheap. For a start, one can use vSphere Replication, which is available free of cost if vCenter is purchased for deploying a DR solution. It is very easy to deploy, though the recovery process will be manual. With SRM, the whole replication and recovery process can be automated for fast VM recovery.

No.

It’s a good product from VMware. Just ensure that for each version upgrade, be patient and look for reviews or, if possible, have a test (virtualized) environment for test deployment.

I use the solution for disaster recovery.

The solution is consistent. It is an automated DR solution. It has test features. We can test DR in advance. We are using the tool for disaster recovery. The product has improved automation. The automation of failover and failback has improved our operational efficiency significantly. It is quite easy to integrate the solution with other VMware products.

The solution must provide better integration with third-party vendors.

I have been using the solution for two years.

I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. We have 10 to 20 users in our organization. We use the solution twice a month.

I rate the ease of setup a seven out of ten. The deployment takes a few months.

We deployed the product with a few in-house team members. The tool requires continuous maintenance. We need two or three people to maintain it.

I will recommend the solution to others. It is a nice product. Overall, I rate the tool an eight out of ten.

We use VMware SRM for disaster recovery.

VMware SRM replicates the VM from one site to another, and it helps us orchestrate the powering of VMs and DR when the DC goes down.

Currently, there is a limitation of consolidating only 15 sites per SRM.

Ransomware recovery or early detection could be incorporated into VMware SRM.

I have been using VMware SRM for three years.

VMware SRM is a stable solution.

VMware SRM is a scalable solution. I work with mostly small and medium businesses.

VMware SRM’s technical support is good.

Positive

We previously used Veeam Disaster Recovery Orchestrator, which is more suited for small businesses. It doesn't offer as much flexibility as VMware SRM. For namesake, it's a DR solution, but it cannot compete with VMware SRM.

VMware SRM's initial setup is easy.

Two people can install VMware SRM in two to three hours.

We pay a yearly licensing fee for VMware SRM, which is not very expensive.

The fee is for the solution's license plus support. There are two options. One is subscription-based, which would be for a one or two years term base, and the other one is perpetual with support.

Just one person is enough to maintain the solution.

I highly recommend VMware SRM to other users.

Overall, I rate VMware SRM a nine out of ten.

We have three different VMs. During long business hours, we can shift from PR to DR. It has high availability.

Setting up VMs can be done quickly. It is easy to use. 

The improvements should be as per customer requirements. 

I have experience with VMware Cloud Disaster Recovery.

The stability of the solution is a nine out of ten, as it is highly stable. 

Two hundred users are using the solution at present. 

I would rate the initial setup an eight out of ten. 

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