What needs improvement with Dell NetWorker?

Dell NetWorker's support requires some experienced personnel to handle issues. In some cases, solutions are not found in one method of call and it escalates to many levels until an experienced person can join to resolve the issue.

To integrate with the library and Oracle, we must make multiple changes to the OS and the database. However, with another solution, we only need to install the backup software, configure it, and run the backup without any changes to the OS. I encountered an issue with Insight, but by using the VR backup, I rebuilt the indexes and successfully brought the server up on the VR side.

The software itself works, but it mostly depends on the environment. If you store the tool in a remote location and you don't have good connectivity, then there won't be issues. The software does what it is supposed to do, which is take care of the backup. The one thing Dell needs to improve on is the area of NVP vProxy. Even for Veritas NetBackup, NVP vProxy is a part of the backup software, so we don't have to deploy it separately. In Dell NetWorker, you have to deploy NVP vProxy for backup using vCenter to backup VMs in VMware, which is one area I noticed is a little bit of a pain because we have to deploy, like, 10, 15 or 20 vProxy servers, which connects vCenter to Dell NetWorker and then you can add the VMs from the VMware to back them up. I know that vProxy has to be deployed. Otherwise, you cannot use vCenter as a backup for the VMs via VMware. I know that vProxy is the only thing I noticed is not a part of the software. You have to deploy a separate server, but integrating is not a problem. You can use it as a backup tool for anything you want, ranging from databases to file systems.

There's an issue with the management environment. Regarding improvements for NetWorker, I believe implementing cross-platform restore functionality is essential. This feature would allow for compatibility with various backup software solutions, similar to Veeam. Additionally, enhancing features related to virtualization infrastructure would be beneficial.

Based on my experience, it was tricky to get support when I started working with the tool. The support is an area with concerns where improvements are required. Once the product starts working, users get good support.

It is mostly on-premise. The product should provide integration with AWS. They have other tools, but if they want to compete against Cohesity, Rubrik, and AWS Backup, they must provide more cloud functionality. The tool must also provide some cloud snapshotting capabilities where we can manage our cloud backups from our on-premise NetWorker.

The NDMP backups, especially NAS, could be optimal. We receive complaints from various vendors related to its slow performance. Additionally, it required full backups and configuration every week or two. There could be a possibility of constructing full backups from incremental data intelligently, similar to TSM. Further, they could adopt a progressive backup methodology.

The tool should integrate with other solutions, like, the tape library.

In terms of improvements for the next release of Dell NetWorker, a key area would be enhancing the user interface, especially the NetWorker Management Console. The stability of the NMC could use some attention, as it tends to be a bit shaky during jobs and other operations. While the browser functions well for general tasks, the NMC encounters various problems, impacting its overall reliability. Addressing these issues would greatly improve the user experience and streamline day-to-day operations. In addition to addressing the UI and stability issues, another aspect that could be improved in Dell NetWorker is the optimization of job management. It would be beneficial to enhance the efficiency and reliability of job execution processes.

While upgrading to a new version, we encounter challenges related to specific algorithms or code regulations. It causes problems if the new version is incompatible with the old authentication method or existing modules. Thus, we have to conduct non-integration tests. It requires a specific server or a specific NRA and GNLP download to configure the application. This setup is time-consuming, especially when compared to modern web-based tools. It could be better. Additionally, its support services need improvement. When we log a case, it takes a long time to resolve it. There could be more experienced engineers in their team.

There is a significant weakness. It's the advertising of the product by Dell. They are doing everything to discourage people from using NetWorker. So that's a weakness, but it's not a weakness of the product itself. It's a weakness of Dell as an organization. We would be pretty happy to use NetWorker because we don't have any functional problems with it. The main issue is the lack of a clear vision for the future of NetWorker. Generally, the preferred backup solution is PowerProtect, and it probably has some benefits. But from our point of view, the disadvantage it has is the lack of support for a tape library. We made an investment into a tape library because it's still a pretty good option, especially for off-site backups. So, that's the only weakness of NetWorker. Moreover, I would like to see additional features in future releases, especially with the growing importance of cloud integration and ransomware protection. The current offering of Cyber Vault for analyzing backups feels a bit clumsy. Real-time protection and more active ransomware detection features would be beneficial. Additionally, NetWorker is not integrated with contemporary storage solutions like Pure Storage. While solutions like Commvault and Veeam are integrated with Pure Storage, NetWorker lacks awareness of Pure Storage. Pure Storage provides snapshots that could be used for backup purposes, but NetWorker and Pure Storage are not compatible or communicating with each other.

The end-user experience is not good. They need to improve the product to make it easier to use. We're missing that right now. The integration with Hyper-V needs to be better. They need better compatibility with Exchange backups. It is difficult to set up. While the stability is good, the troubleshooting is hard.

Dell NetWorker could improve the GUI to include rack recovery.

It could be more user-friendly.

The UI needs some enhancement to be more user-friendly.

The implementation process could be improved. It requires a skill set to set up. In addition, the product line should support all brands and solutions.

This is an expensive solution, in addition to which, the interface is not user-friendly. We're sometimes looking for a feature on one interface and it's on another. It would be helpful if they would centralize everything on one interface.

Currently, the NetWorker server only supports the Windows server bare-metal recovery, so an improvement would be built-in support for Linux and UNIX BMR. In the next release, NetWorker should include support for container backups and Kubernetes.

The user interface of this solution could be improved. It is not user friendly and is difficult to understand for new users. New users struggle to understand the logic.

The web console could be a lot better. All the customers are dependent on a separate console server. If they want to access NetWorker, they need to have a separate console server to access the management window. I know they've come up with a browser-based management site in order to monitor day-to-day backups and to perform the administration or the setup within the web console. Yet, for the web-based console, they still need to do some improvements. The documentation could be better. I find the solution is not properly documented. If you want to set up a SharePoint, there are certain steps to be followed, which I have to discover myself, I have to find out myself, which was not found in those installation setup guides. That's something I would suggest. We have already passed this suggestion to Dell EMC, letting them know that there are a few steps missing. The documentation was not properly maintained or properly updated. Previously, the older documentation was good. However, it seems that now, when they update and move forward it's not properly documented.

The front end of the solution could improve. The user-friendliness is lacking.

Dell EMC NetWorker is still not mature, compared to its competitors. For example: the TSM (Tivoli Storage Manager) of IBM is very accurate in error logs, and it is very rare to get failure alerts when using the TSM. It's fast and reliable which I didn't see from Dell EMC NetWorker. Another example is the Veritas which I also have experience with. Though Veritas is lower in level compared to the TSM, Veritas is more user-friendly than the TSM. All features for Dell EMC NetWorker are good, but they are not something to be happy about. Sometimes this solution shows some errors, e.g. related to open files. It is based on Java, which is very bad. There's so many issues not reflecting what's really happening in the background. Reporting is very bad in Dell EMC NetWorker. It's also very difficult to get whatever you need based on the backup time duration. Dell EMC NetWorker has so many versions in a short span of time, which contain a lot of bugs that need to be fixed because each upgrade has its own issues. For every new update of this solution, bugs get fixed, but something new, e.g. a new bug comes up in each version which needs to be fixed.

When you're working with VMware, you need to use vProxy machines. You have to install the vProxy for every host in the VMware environment. Also, if the customer needs to integrate or add additional products, it will be integrated with the NetWorker and data domain, the recovery point for VMware, because it covers the gap between the backup windows. You can take snapshots every few minutes depending on the size of the VM to cover the gap between the backup windows. You can restore from any point in time for the backup.

Dell EMC should be more aggressive with its marketing; such as is done by Commvault. There should be total integration of the replication and cloud logistic back up on cloud.

I believe that the area of support could be improved. They don't appear to have an adequate number of staff members to assist us if we have any problems. It would be extremely beneficial if they could provide local support. I would like to see encryption included in the next release to encrypt the data that we are backing up.

The solution could improve by having more integration.

The user interface needs some work. It would be beneficial to have a single user interface for all of the features.

In older versions, the graphical user interface isn't so good. There should be more vendors incorporated into the solution.

Its console UI should be better. It should also have more out-of-the-box reporting functionalities. It should also have easier cloud integration. They have got cloud boost and things like that, but if you want to directly back up to the cloud, I'm not too sure whether you can do it. For example, you can easily send data from Commvault to AWS, Azure, or a container, but it seems to be not so easy in NetWorker.

There's a lot of room for improvement. The user interface has to be improved. Sometimes it duplicates jobs. Overall, it's a strong legacy product but there's still a lot of room for improvement. We have to perform the very basic client registration process twice. We have to do it on the client-side and the NetWorker server-side. Sometimes just re-installing a client can be a nightmare. Also, the layout can be a bit scattered. It's difficult to learn for a new newcomer. If you work with Linux clients, if you've got another non-Windows system, it's a little bit tough — a little complex. When it comes to the monitoring of backups, or if you want to grab a certain log, it's not as intuitive as other solutions. For example, if you want to find a backup for a certain client, it's not straightforward. With other solutions, like Avamar, this process is much easier. Scheduling is complicated. If you use the GUI to create a schedule and you auto mark all your backups SQL, it's simply not there. You have to change the view of the schedule from a calendar view to what they call a non-calendar view. Then you have to modify the attributes. You have to operate in a non-conventional way. Typically, when using the GUI, the expectation is to use the GUI for everything. With this solution, you have to go online to check the logs. You have to do some manipulations here and there — it's complex. Recovery is also complex. You have to build what we call 'a proper workflow' for recovery.

The interface is the same, so when we are trying to troubleshoot the logs, it doesn't display properly. There doesn't seem to be a lot of development with this solution. You don't see any updates with the features, or any development with the features. In general, Dell EMC doesn't seem to be investing much in the R&D of this product. They are selling it off. I would like to see an improvement with the features in terms of troubleshooting and ease of use. The documentation is very poor. It takes quite a bit of experience to understand the documentation. A new person who is going through the documentation will not be able to understand. There is no detailed documentation. The product itself is good, but it takes a lot of time to troubleshoot. I would like to see the user interface improved, more documentation, faster support, and it could be easier to configure.

It is a little buggy at times, which is the only thing that I dislike about this product. If they could clear up this issue then it would be great because, for the most part, this is a very effective product from my perspective. I would like to see more integration with third-party products, including both tape and disk products. I want to be able to perform backups not only from Dell EMC. Having this wide level of support would be very much appreciated. It could be easier to deploy.

They need to take off the tape and allow us to use different repositories in order to keep the data for five to 10 years. The data storage capabilities should be improved. The next release will include better integration with Data Domain, which is a really good product.

The scaling can be difficult when updates are involved. Sometimes the systems come in faster than a producer of the software can react to the new features. The solution should have better access to Linux or virtual systems of files based on Linux. It doesn't matter if it is a hard installation or only a virtual installation. Sometimes the client doesn't need a backup of the whole system and only needs a handful of files. The initial setup is complex. Technical support should be more accessible.

NetWorker is coming to end-of-life in a couple of years, and even Dell has said that they are not going to continue with it. They no longer develop it. They put their efforts into the new Power Protect products instead. Support for the cloud could be better and with the existing features, it could be a bit more robust. Also, the flexibility could be improved. They need more support for image backups.

The integration of the web API should be improved. There has been new functionality added to the API but it should be easier to understand. The Backup module should be improved, especially the functionality for SharePoint and SQL Server. We are having issues when we are trying to backup up Microsoft applications, and it happens when the data is very large. For example, our database is 19 terabytes and this is very large for NetWorker, so it runs slowly. We are not able to tune it and segment it. If it were a file system, then we could split it into smaller pieces. In cases like this, it is very fast. However, because we are not able to divide it, the backup is slow. This is one area that can be improved because often, people don't need to take a full backup. Sometimes, then just want a snapshot of some data. The capability of incremental backups should be included. As it is now, when DD Boost tries to compare the current backup with the previous one, it has trouble with the large versions and it can take three to four days. They cannot perform an incremental backup using VSS technology for SharePoint or MS SQL Server. Definitely, backup for Microsoft applications needs to be improved. They should improve the support for backing up containers. The process of upgrading versions should be improved because as it is now, you have to completely uninstall the old version first, and then install the new version. If we compare this to another product, like Veritas NetBackup, it also has good features but when you upgrade to the latest version, everything is automatic. I would like to see better cloud integration, such as with AWS or Azure.

They have many different products but they don't integrate all of the features into one product. This is an area of failure with this solution. For example, if we want source-side deduplication then we have to use Avamar because this kind of feature isn't available in NetWorker. Some features in NetWorker are good as well as some features in Avamar are good. If they could combine the features of both products into one single product, it would be better. In the next release, I would like to see better pricing and more integration with the other products in Dell EMC.

In terms of what can be improved, they need to be compatible with the cloud because EMC NetWorker cannot compete with other products at the moment. The other products like Veeam and Commvault are more flexible and are more compatible with other cloud vendors. EMC cannot do the same thing. EMC focuses only on their own cloud and do not take into consideration other cloud vendors.

The configuration is too complex. As a backup solution, it's not user-friendly.

It is not easy to understand and deploy. It is complex in nature. Simplicity is not there. When we deploy it, the customer always needs some training from us. To make it user friendly, there should be one agent that can be used to back up every product. Dell EMC NetWorker uses so many user agents. In PowerProtect Data Manager, you can just install its VM, import that VM into vCenter, and you can start to do backups directly from vCenter. However, in Dell EMC NetWorker, you always need one server, and from that server, you need to initiate all backups. You must know the interface and the CLI. It is not user friendly. It would be a great feature if we can deploy Dell EMC NetWorker on a virtual machine, like Avamar. The additional features that are required in Dell EMC NetWorker are already available in PowerProtect Data Manager and Avamar. Therefore, there is no need to enhance Dell EMC NetWorker. It would be better if they can just rename it to PowerProtect Data Manager or Avamar.

It is not easy to understand. It's not easy to deploy. It's complex in nature. When it's deployed, the customers always need to have training from us. In order to make it user-friendly, there is an agent that can be used to back up every product. Networker users many agents, and just like Powerprotect Data Manager, you can install its VM to import the VM into vCenter, and from Center, you can start your backups. With NetWorker, you always need to have one server, and from that server, you need to initiate all backups. You will need to know the interface and NetWorker CLI. It's not user-friendly. If NetWorker could be deployed on a virtual machine, similar to Avamar, that would be a great feature. The features that are required in NetWorker are available in PowerProtect and Avamar. There is no need to enhance Networker, they just need to rename it to PPDM or Avamar. That would be better.

Things could be improved in several areas beginning with support. If you compare it to Commvault or Veritas solutions, their support is better than Networker. In terms of features that are lacking, I think the restore feature is important and it's not available on NetWorker. The other solutions have more programs. For additional features, I'd like to see integration with any storage place. NetWorker finance also doesn't enable deduplication, there is no source deduplication while using NetWorker, it's only accessible if it's on a different domain. I hope to see that in the next release. I also think the data protection adviser should be embedded in the NetWorker software so there is no need to install another server to collect logs. Finally, the PMR is no longer supported in Linux.

The components for container support such as Docker and Kubernetes need improvement. They are lacking. Stability needs improvement. Also, scalability could be better. I would like to see better support for the container systems, and we would like to see more support for image backups instead of pure file backups. Image backups are faster.

Technical support could be improved. They shouldn't just serve those who speak English. The technical support should be in the national language of the country they are servicing and not only in English due to the fact that it's sometimes difficult for us to explain all the things that are going wrong in an unfamiliar language. It creates a communication barrier and makes getting problems solved harder. The solution is not easy to administer unless you are very familiar with the product. The licensing rules are difficult to navigate and understand. The administrator's interface should be much easier to navigate.

I believe that the reporting could be improved and the report templates should be easier to understand and more comprehensive. I believe they are already working to replace the Java console with the HTML web browser-based administration console which is the other issue. I hope they are able to do this quickly. In terms of my expertise, I can't think of any other issues.

I feel that it is a good product. However, if its setup is configured correctly, it will work well but if it's not, it's a total disaster. I think that goes for any backup product. Coming into architectural design thinking, for example, we introduced a backup network. This has helped speed up our backup time and the time it took Windows to backup. That has made a huge difference without impacting reduction systems elsewhere that connects into the same systems. So the main thing would be to optimize scheduling and do the setup correctly, then it will improve the backup features.

The system needs better integration with other toolsets. Support could be improved. EMC also needs to offer more information for users online. The solution needs more automation and more reporting, so we don't need to check everything manually.

The deduplication needs improvement and it could use better integration.

The operating system could be improved. The interface could also be much easier.

The main problem that we are having had to do with stability. We are looking forward to better stability in future versions. Our customers often ask for better integration with Microsoft Exchange.

Configuration for Hyper-V needs to be improved. Our original configuration did not work because of an issue that differed between versions. We are able to do direct backups, but analyzing the logs is not straightforward. There are a lot of things that have to be done from the client-side in order to locate and identify errors. This should be made easier. This solution should support part-loaded data. I would like to see support for the enactment of errors, where the error should be very clear-mannered, on board, with NMC control only. When some backups fail, we investigate all of the possibilities and sometimes have to enter the admin from the client-side. We then have to render the log and investigate that. If it is a Microsoft issue, for example, then we will contact Microsoft. This entire process needs to be enhanced.

They need to improve their level of support. The software also isn't user-friendly like Commvault or Rubrik. The solution errors and management aren't so good in comparison.

We would like support for tape space reclaim, using either the same or another pool. NetWorker uses only a stage directed to a clone pool, which is not enough to recover space on the tape.

The security features need backup and encryption. It would be nice if they added this feature. I would also like to be able to decrypt when restoring the security features. Hackers can sense these vulnerabilities today, and we need to have our enterprise prepared. Overall, it isn't intuitive enough. It is a bit complex and not evolving with the technology.

In Rubrik, we were getting less time for backup the things because snapshot feature is there. So we asked that our EMC account manager help us. He suggested some block based backup, but we have seen that it won't stand as compared to the rubric snapshot back up. Rubrik and Veeam has the directly cloud interface. So, you have to just configure the credentials for the cloud access and you can start taking the backup from Rubrik, which means the local backup is after schedule. So currently we don't think there is anything like this with the Networker. We would like Networker to have a cloud side approach, which it does not currently have. In addition, we have been facing some problems what with the initial configuration. I heard that Networker has released some beta versions.