What needs improvement with Micro Focus Data Protector?

Recently, clients have raised concerns about the lack of comprehensive documentation for Data Protector. This has been an issue, especially when troubleshooting or integrating with other vendor-specific products, as they need detailed guidance for these integrations. Another concern is related to VM backups and snapshot backups. Some clients question the need for complete snapshots when they could use time-based backups or partial restores. In my experience working with clients in both India and abroad, I've encountered various scenarios where clients have different preferences for backup strategies. I’ve worked on various projects for AMG Australia and in India, including a challenging migration of an IDP from version 6 to 10. The process required incremental upgrades through intermediate versions (6 to 8, then 8 to 10, and finally 10 to 11), which was quite lengthy. We’ve encountered similar issues with customers using versions as old as 5.5 or 6. We’re looking for solutions that might allow for a direct migration from earlier versions, such as 7, to the latest versions without going through all the intermediate steps.

The challenge is that we can't restore a single file from the VM in the data process when we do VM backups. But with Commvault, you can restore a single file even if you have a VM snapshot package. That's one drawback of this tool. When we do VM backups, it should help us browse the VMs to restore a single file instead of doing the complete VM restore.

OpenText Data Protector is more difficult to use and configure than OpenText VIM. The user-friendliness of OpenText Data Protector has to be increased, and the complexity of the tool needs to be reduced. The product is just not easy to use. Teaching OpenText VIM to someone without experience is much easier, but it may take a week to do the same thing with OpenText Data Protector.

We faced some certification issues after we upgraded to version 10.2.

In SAP restoration, we faced issues with changing the SIDs and changing the path for every backup object. It is quite a lengthy process to do that. We have to change that individually on every object. We have also provided an enhancement request to the OpenText team. The backup process for SAP Oracle could be improved. When restoring, the need to alter SIDs arises, particularly in scenarios involving server changes or out-of-place restores. This leads to a requirement for modifying remote checkpoint settings and initiating the restoration process. The situation becomes more complex and time-intensive when dealing with a large number of files. So, improvements are needed for the backup of SAP Oracle, especially for situations involving CPR codes Another area of improvement is support. There's room for improvement in terms of the support we receive from the OEM or the technical support team. The reason for seeking improved support is mainly due to extended response times. Mostly, I've encountered situations where an engineer has to wait until the end of their shift before passing the issue to the next level of support. This process takes too much time to resolve any issue. Unfortunately, we frequently do not receive dedicated support from the Micro Focus team. Another area of improvement is stability of the application on Windows.

The solution's customer support service needs a lot of improvement. Presently, they take a long time to resolve simple issues.

If I compare products from HP to Micro Focus, I do not see a lot of development in Micro Focus like before. The product can be developed by including functionalities like DR, CDP, and SureBackup, which are currently unavailable in the solution. However, one also needs to consider that Micro Focus is used by enterprise-sized businesses that don't care about many features. The solution's data protection features and scalability could be improved.

Micro Focus are improving Data Protector with every new version and since we began undergoing training with the latest version we have not faced any real challenges yet. However, their support does need to be improved, in my opinion. In certain critical cases that we've had, they did not provide a satisfactory level of support.

The GUI could be updated. The GUI hasn't changed since version 6. It's on version 10 now. The reporting could also be better. Also, while Data Protector is excellent for backing up physical hardware, it needs more features for backing up VM images because many environments use hypervisor. It's not as good as some of its competitors. One image backup job should be able to restore the file or database level, but Data Protector has to create three separate jobs.

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.

We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas. If they can overtake these, either they can go through R&Ds or they can allow us to go through R&Ds it would be helpful. Because we couldn't find certain lab environments where we could just try to succeed in those environments because we can't always go test in the customer environment. When a technology consultant provides an idea, it is because they have just gone through the customer environment, they have gone through the lock and et cetera, they are well versed with those, and all they need now are some solutions. However, if I need to work with R&Ds, we don't have those solution architects who can help us manage, test, and implement those environments. That is where we fall short. We couldn't find an environment where we could simply try to go through testing and then implement it in the customer locations. DP is a very user-friendly product, and we are transitioning to a web-based environment. It works because we don't have to go through a platform that is dependent on each cell manager individually. Rather, we can try to create a platform-independent solution, such as a portal that can be accessed from anywhere. That is one option where I can work out in more central environments where I can just try to manage. We have a number of features where if we find a web portal and a good tool managing the number of devices and even just trying to configure along with a centralized medium and database, CMDB, we have a number of features. We have a very good feature going through centralizing media management, centralizing cell managers, and then working on a centralized media where we can just try to manage them to a cloud, which works very well because it is a centralized environment where we can pitch into it.

We have a lot of requests for the Micro Focus team, particularly in terms of the Japanese data pattern, as it's not as good now. The Japanese data pattern accuracy of the Micro Focus Data Protector needs to be improved because there are a lot of false negatives and false positives. We are currently testing this and our product team has been communicating with the Micro Focus team. What we'd like to see in the next release of the solution is better compatibility with other products, apart from a more accurate Japanese data pattern.

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.

We're not satisfied with the robustness and stability of the software since Micro Focus took it in-house. The GUI is one thing they could improve. It's still a bit archaic. Data Protector needs a more functional, user-friendly GUI.

The online backups of Office 365 have room for improvement. This is now available for the Exchange Online part of Office 365, but we're still waiting for SharePoint Online, Teams, etc. We know that it's coming, but it takes time.

I do not think that this solution is relevant in the current IT market. They have not upgraded their features and functionalities which makes it difficult for them to remain competitive.

The VMware GRE is still limited and complex to implement with differences in behavior between Windows and Linux mount proxies. ZDB has too many constraints (e.g. it doesn't work for Linux volumes mirrored with software different from LVM). Microfocus needs to build a partnership with other vendors in addition to HPE as far as cloud consolidation of backups. With the 11.0 release, there have been improvements in terms of security (Secure communication) however, the bar is still not high enough. Data Protector advanced scheduler should be replaced with a more reliable scheduler such as the Veritas One.

The downside of the flexibility on offer is if you over-configure it, it may fail to function as some configurations may not match. That said, it's a very flexible tool to use it. It helps to start with minimal configuration to avoid misalignment of parameters. The scheduling could be better. We thought they had made some improvements, however, the scheduling of backups needs to be more flexible and we need to be able to apply different policies at different times.

In terms of what can be improved, I would say integrations with MongoDB. We use MongoDB and we need to go to scripts to do backups. We need more integrations. The feature I would like to see in the next release is only more integration with new databases.

This product needs a lot of improvement both on the technical side and in its pricing and compatibility.

It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support.

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 would like to see a better user interface in the next release.

Micro Focus Data Protector must improve its overall evolution record. They need to focus on hardware-based instant recovery, client recovery, and cloud abilities. Now there is no cloud ability. Another thing they need to work on is that they still lack bare-metal VM and bare-metal recovery models. The third issue they need to improve, and at the top of the list, is that with the RTO and RPO, we cannot come to a customer as an industry best. Because what happens when you sell is that recovery takes the longest time. This is the pain point in the solution, that it takes time compared to instant recovery. In terms of additional features I would like to see included in the next release of Micro Focus Data Protector, I will be looking for instant recovery features and for better reporting. To sum up, instant recovery and cloud ability (backup to cloud, return to cloud and restore).

The solution isn't ideal for big data or large CRMs. We have been lacking proper training on the solution. This seems to be a weak point of the product. They should offer better training for their users. Other tools seem to be easier to use. The solution should offer support for the backup of cloud platforms. The same system needs to work with replication and mirror sites, for example.

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.

The interface has been the same for many years and needs to be updated. The dashboard has changed, but that only deals with part of the backup process.

In general, you can say that Micro Focus Data Protector is behind in capabilities when compared with other backup solutions, such as Commvault, Symantec, NetBackup, but it is very strong for certain use cases such as array integration. We are using it in production even now. There should be some kind of cloud integration and archiving solutions. I think this is the area they need to focus on.

It's annoying that you actually have to pay for the deduplication feature in order to use it. Starting at around 2010, they haven't really changed their interface or added many new features. The console is dated. they need to make it more modern, add colours and better UI to make it more user friendly and attractive. If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam. They are starting to create a cloud version of the Data Protector. The thing is, it's very hard to convince an administrator like me to switch to it, due to the fact that they are basically a hardware designed software. It was designed by a hardware engineer, that's why it looks and feels and operates like hardware. To change it to a software doesn't sit right. In comparison, when you use Veeam, you feel like you are managing a cloud. You feel that you are managing something on the top. When you're using Micro Focus Data Protector, on the other hand, you feel that you are directly communicating with the device. It's just as bumpy and not as satisfying as compared to Veem, which is compact and light. Every time there is a backup running, I cannot predict anything, so I cannot say if it will back up the first time. Data Protector has a status bar. You need to wait and see. Their flexibility of their reporting needs improvement. You cannot save. You need to copy/paste. It may have appeared flexible in the 1990s, however, it's 2020 now. We need a flexible reporting of all that is happening on the Data Protector. We don't need to focus too much on the data, we need to focus on the maintenance of the machine. There needs to be a focus on analytical reports. We need answers to questions like: "Am I going to lose capacity?" "Do I still have enough space?" "Do I still have enough capacity for the cloud?" Data Protector should analyze these things for you, and alert you if you need to increase capacity. The solution needs more mobile capabilities. If I cannot see your product on my mobile, you're not worth considering. Nowadays, that's a basic requirement for an administrator. There is no place in the world that is not connected to the internet or IoT. There is a lot to be done that the competitors are already doing for the last four years. The solution needs to change their support agreement. It was changed from traditional to capacity. That means the product is now only targeting big companies. As it stands now, they cannot really market to smaller organizations because their capacity is not that much. Licensing should be flexible for small businesses all the way up to enterprise-level businesses. Once you perform a backup for a huge amount of data, you cannot browse it. You cannot browse a specific characteristic of that data on the database in order to find a file. If the file is large, you need to restore it. With Veem, you can view it even if it's inside the archive. It gives you the assurance it's actually there. The solution needs to have a good explorer for administrators. I need to have the flexibility of viewing where I put my data. When it is going to the tape, the tape is totally encrypted. You need to restore it before you know what is inside. It's a big waste of time.

I don't like this solution so much because it's very technical and compared to Commvault and Veeam, it's not so user-friendly. The interface needs improvement. It was sold to another company, I haven't seen a lot of improvement that they have done.

I'm sure Data Protector has improved because we have an old version and I think the new versions have many new features but I'm not familiar with them. The version we are using now does not work with virtual machines and it lacks many features. I'm sure the new version is better. It has many functions that can compete with Veeam, but the problem is that its price is more expensive. It's very expensive compared to Veeam and other similar solutions. We changed Microsoft to a virtual environment, so in a virtual environment, we could not do a backup with the version we're using. It doesn't work with a virtual machine. In addition, we could not restore the machine. This is the main problem with it. We are switching to Veeam because Data Protector is lacking good virtualization features and because the cost is very high.

The solution would be improved if it would work with OpenStack. People prefer Veeam because the interface is easier, and Data Protector is difficult in comparison. Data Protector is beginning to integrate virtual machines. Customers, however, find it more comfortable to work on a virtual machine, for example, with Veeam Backup. They find it easier, once again, because the interface is easier.

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 like to see an improvement in the reporting feature of this solution as it is really bad. It needs to include important views and dashboards so that we can configure the functions we need. They should also improve their technical support to make the response time faster.

The software needs to redesign the UI and they should organize the functions so that they are much easier to use. It's very hard to understand how to use the software.

Make it simpler to use, integrate with as many applications as possible, and improve the dashboard.