What needs improvement with Quorum OnQ?

They have radio buttons that allow multiselection, which is not intuitive. Also, the URL for our environments is the same, making it confusing for management when handling different departments with different needs.

There was a situation I faced in the past when I contacted the tool's support team, and it took them a while to respond. After that, everything was fine with the tool. The response time of the support team is an area where improvements are required.

The subscription must be affordable..

Quorum OnQ's user interface is not very attractive and should be made more attractive. The turn-around time of Quorum OnQ's customer support should be improved.

it's too early to say what needs improvements at this stage. The cost could be reduced.

Quorum OnQ is limited and does not support all the Linux flavours, and it should be integrated. It currently only supports Red Hat-based systems. For example, Ubuntu is not supported. In addition, the price is high and could be more competitive.

Pretty much it is answering to the current market requirements when we are talking about the standard compatibilities. That said if we look around at some other verticals where there is a requirement to protect non-standard operating systems like UX or UNIX and AIX. In that scenario, they should be compatible with them as well. They need integration with other platforms. The more basic versions do not scale.

The price of Quorum OnQ could be improved. We were exploring the product in terms of having a partnership with the distributor so that we could operate as a service, but for our own use, within the company, we couldn't justify the price unless the servers would become an option later on. The upfront cost of purchasing a license for the hardware is quite steep. As for additional features, I would like to see support for other servers. If they leave out distributions like Ubuntu and others, they're limiting their compatibility with servers.

It would be beneficial if file culling could be more granular.

The user interface needs to be improved. It is good, albeit very simple and the look needs to be improved when compared to other products on the market. I would prefer if there were an easier way to restore databases or applications. It would be good, for example, if the Quorum agent could do things like restore databases at the table level.

Compatibility with other platforms is the issue. Quorum OnQ can be improved by providing support for other operating systems like Ubuntu. Even Oracle supports other platforms. I would also like them to upgrade the hardware appliances. It'll also help our clients if they made the requirements and service level agreements easier to understand.

The solution could do more by improving compatibility in terms of supporting other OS. In addition, the platform support should increase as there are some restrictions there. It's the only challenge we face right now.

I would like to see iSCSI support added so that NAS storage servers could be protected. We heavily utilize NAS storage and the risk there is minimal backup options. Currently, we are backing up NAS to NAS which is costly and slow. Being able to integrate NAS server backup would be the last item on my Quorum bucket list. I am excited to see enhanced support for Linux, which gives me an opportunity to let the Quorum start protecting my enterprise storage in our data centers. I would like to see this further developed as well.

It is not as feature-rich as a product like Veeam. Better integration with cloud-based solutions like Azure and Office 365 is needed. Because this product is somewhat new on the market, the vendor needs to do more marketing to raise awareness about it. There is a long-term retention capability but it is a separate license that is available at an additional cost.

There's not much room for improvement in onQ. The systems are pretty stable. Their support is top-notch. I like the fact that their support seems to be in North America solely, so there aren't any language issues. I really don't have any complaints. The one thing they could do is some tweaking on the web solution that's supposed to monitor everything from one page, rather than having to bring each server up on its own webpage. It doesn't always accurately show what the system's state is at the time, and we have to restart that process now and then. But it's not really affecting productivity. It just would make our monitoring slightly easier.

Upgrading the software on the appliance feels to me like it's going to be a little bit more work than I originally anticipated. The process for moving the VM off of the Quorum appliance and back into the production network again requires quite a number of steps. I don't know if there can be any improvement made on that, but in looking at it, I found it was pretty lengthy. There were quite a number of steps there so I requested that one of the Quorum engineers perform the process, which they were happy to do. That part was great. They were able to get that VM moved over from the appliance to my production network again and everything was fine.

At times the email notifications don't go out, but a quick reset always fixes that problem.

We have had one issue with backups for SQL servers. We found that some of the live SQL databases we were backing up would be inconsistent when we would restore them. We now have to consistently monitor the integrity of those databases.

I don't love the scheduler, as I think that interface could use an overhaul. I have always managed to get it to work the way I wanted it to, but it could be nicer and more user-friendly. Having to pick that a job repeats every 23:59 is a bit ridiculous in this day and age.

I would really like it if they followed comparable products from other vendors and had an option where you could offload to tape. I know it sounds incredibly antiquated, but the benefit I see is that there would be a better air gap than you have with backing up to an online source. For instance, if somebody were to get onto your network, whether it's this device or any other device, they could destroy your primary backup. And they could tell it to delete all those hosts off of the cloud, and it does so because, in the normal lifecycle of servers, you take servers on and offline all the time, so that functionality has to exist. That could leave you with a network with nothing, and no backups. But if you were taking your Quorum, or your other disaster recovery device, and dropping it to tape every week or every month for long-term retention, while the malicious actor could still do the exact same process, it would be pretty tough for them to destroy the tapes that are in a safe that have been in there every week for the entire year. That is one feature that I think would add a layer of security. It's a feature that other vendors have, and one which would help set an IT person's mind at ease knowing that, while it is an old technology, the benefit is there and the availability is there.

One thing that could be done to improve it would be a single pane of glass for doing disaster recovery testing, where I could have remote consoles in one place. They may be working towards this, and I haven't necessarily tested all of the features of version 5 yet. It is completely new to me. But as far as DR testing goes, I think I still have to go to each location in a browser and then bring up the console. I'd like to see them integrate that into a single pane of glass so I don't have to go to each server.