VMware Live Recovery Reviews

We are not an end-user. We are a solutions provider to companies.

All of its components are very competitive compared to other solutions. The application, the DR health check, and the scale-out file system are all great. They tailored a lot of technology in the VCDR, which is good. It's a very good solution overall.

The initial setup is very straightforward. 

The solution is stable. 

Technical support is very proactive and helpful.

The solution has proven to be easily scalable. 

They need to have their own cloud, however, unfortunately, since the solution has been acquired by VMware, I doubt that will be happening.

It is impossible to acquire Datrium data nodes, unfortunately.

It would be ideal if they added advanced analytics or AI to the solution.

We've been working with the solution since before Datrium was acquired by VMware. 

In terms of stability, recently, we encountered an issue, however, it has been addressed immediately by support. It's now resolved. For the most part, the solution is stable. 

The scalability is pretty good. We just have to ask for additional space. Eventually, it will be guaranteed on demand.

There are many users on the solution. It's a big organization.

One of the good things about the solution is that it has very proactive support there. They are helpful and responsive and we are pleased with the level of assistance they offer.

We did not previously use a different solution. 

The solution is very straightforward and easy to set up. The deployment is quick and easy. In our experience, the solution only takes four hours to deploy. 

We're integrators and therefore can implement the solution for our clients. 

We looked at other solutions, however, the product is a very good technology. We have seen its many advantages as compared to other solutions. For example, the solution has been HCI disaggregated.

I'm not sure which version of the solution we're using. 

We're an integrator. Our clients use the solution. We are not end-users. 

I'd rate the solution at a ten out of ten.

• Ease of management.
• Testing failover capabilities.

Gives us the ability for true DR testing, readiness.

Flexibility to choose different PITs would be nice. Also, ability to give VMs different priority per Recovery Plan would be useful.

Four years.

Not yet.

Not yet.

Seven out of 10. I give them a seven because they don’t always get back within the SLA, and have had a few issues they took a long time to resolve.

No.

Fairly straightforward.

Licensing costs explode after 75 VMs.

We evaluated Zerto. We felt SRM/RecoverPoint gave us more flexibility in our solution. That was five years ago though.

I would recommend it.

SRM's best feature is automation.

An improvement for SRM would be better interface compatibility with other products.

I've been using VMware SRM for ten years.

I've never faced any issues with SRM's stability.

SRM is reasonably priced for the functionality it provides.

I'd rate SRM as eight out of ten.

It's user-friendly, for those who have learned and experienced the technology.

VMware is one of the best products in the industry when it comes to virtualization.

Technical support needs improvement, they are not very responsive.

You should be technically skilled enough so that you don't have to rely on its support. It's not easy when you don't get the support that you would expect to receive from VMware.

I have been working with this solution for more than five years.

VMware SRM is a stable solution. It's very reliable.

VMware SRM is a scalable solution.

We have always had trouble reaching out to support and connecting with their support engineers.

I would rate the technical support a three out of five.

Neutral

In terms of VMware, we use a variety of solutions, such as VMware vSAN, VxRail, Center, and SRM.

I would rate VMware SRM an eight out of ten.

The recovery plans and customization options. I also the love the re-protect feature for easier fallback.

We were able to migrate 100 virtual servers to our St. Louis office with very little downtime.

I would like to see the database come built-in to the product. I would also prefer to the SRM server come as a virtual appliance instead of a windows vm. I would also like to see a way to control bandwidth usage.

3 years.

No, the process is very well documented.

No, but you need to have a good understanding of your bandwidth between sites. SRM does not have a native way to throttle bandwidth usage.

No.

Excellent.

Excellent.

We looked at various types of solutions like Veeam, DoubleTake and Neverfail.

It was very straightforward.

In-house.

We were able to reduce the cost of our overall DR infrastructure while increase our recovery time. We are seeing a 25% return.

Yes, Veeam, Neverfail and DoubleTake.

Take the time to understand your change rate of your servers, your bandwidth capabilities and the recovery objects for your DR plan.

The automatic activation of the storage volumes and bringing up all VM’s. The recovery plans and resource mapping are good features.

With the resource mapping we can use different networks to bring up our VM’s

We can easily create a test environment with the SRM testing functionality, also in combination with EMC recoverpoint we can start up a virtual machine to a given point in time.

Automatic guest customizations through a GUI is a missing feature. Also the new version of SRM is web-only and is not that stable as the old client version.

We had couple of times that the web interface crashed and needed to restart the services.

7 years.

No issues encountered.

No, but the new web client is sometime ‘buggy.'

No issues encountered.

We needed to use customer service a couple of times while upgrading versions but all went fine.

8/10

No previous solution used.

It wasn't complex.

We used a vendor team and their expertise was good.

This product makes it easy for us to have a managed DR. Also the point in time functionality to bring up vm’s is a cost-saving method for us during the upgrade / testing period.

No other options evaluated.

Read and follow the admin guide, otherwise when you miss a step you can search long time. Also use the correct storage adapter of your storage vendor.

Our primary use case of this solution is for testing. 

The UI is very user-friendly and testing is easy, it doesn't require a lot of resources or a SAN team to enable testing, a single person can do it and get results. 

Unfortunately, SRM is not stable and it therefore requires continuous monitoring. If there are any issues associated with the Center, SRM doesn't work well and as a result, it generates a lot of tickets and productivity drops. 

I've been using this solution for five years.

Although this solution is a good tool, it lacks stability. We have five users in our team. 

The overall advantage of VMware is its scalability. But when it comes to SRM, scalability is not really relevant. It's only relevant in terms of the DR solution because SRM is a component of VMware, which requires vCenter. 

The technical support is quite good. 

Setup of SRM required the architectural team. The SAN team plays a very important role here because there's not enough stability. The DR test can fail because of the associated orchestration issues with regard to the SAN.

I've never used Zerto, but from my training and my personal analysis, I think it's better than SRM. 

I rate this product six out of 10. 

It’s expensive, and we also use Zerto, but good for disaster recovery testing.

Business continuity and disaster recovery, although it’s not fully storage agnostic like Zerto, and we’ve moved away a bit because we use other services for our clients.

I haven’t yet checked out latest version because we’ve been moving away from it, stuck using it for replication clients and it doesn’t work with all storage vendors. There are issues with versioning.

It works great, and does what it’s supposed to. Easy to do disaster revovery test without affecting production.

It's easy to scale, just limited to storage vendors.

Never needed it.

It’s a little complex. Just follow the instructions, but it’s not too complicated once you get connectivity, and it requires multiple vCenters, so that can make it more costly.

Zerto may be more cost efficient, so I’m not 100% sold, and may not need it at all.