AWS Backup Reviews

AWS Backup's most valuable feature is that you can configure it remotely to create backups.

The service disconnects a lot. We configured AWS with VMware, and it's hard to configure because you have to configure the Black gateway and the gateway you connect to VMware. We didn't know what the issue with the gateway was. When we designed this and did the evaluation, we had to run a console application and console commands to verify the backup status, and it gave some errors that were hard to troubleshoot. This was one of the reasons we did not continue with it. Also, when you start, you don't know what's happening with the backups. You start the backup, and then you don't know the progress because there is no indication of where we have reached, like a progress bar. Likewise, there was no indication from the source that the backup was being processed. In the end, we got a notification "backup failed" as an error. We had to troubleshoot what the error was, and that was the main issue with AWS Backup.

I don't think AWS Backup is that stable because we were getting some errors and had no clue about the issues.

AWS promises it will be scalable and have more features, but it doesn't support all the platforms. It will support VMware if you have that. But what if you have other platforms? We were evaluating virtualization technologies other than VMware to be added and utilized, but they are not yet supported. You either need Veeam or your cloud environment in AWS. We also have concerns about what if we have some servers in Azure or other data centers and different technologies. It is not scalable to provide support at that level.

I rate the initial setup a six out of ten, with ten indicating a simple setup. You have to install the gateway and then connect it to VMware.

AWS is more expensive than some competitors like Azure. AWS charges for stored details and the service itself whenever you do the backup. It was vague because they want you to put your data on the cloud, and then you don't know how to retrieve it. It was complicated for us to figure out the price.

Since it's a new product, you don't have community forums that give more details about what's happening and the errors.

I don't know what AWS Backup's features are, but if it works and if the customer has VMware and wants to back up data from VMware directly to AWS, they need to try it by downloading the gateway and seeing if it backs up seamlessly without any issues. If their connection is good enough, that is because I remember one of the issues was with the Internet bandwidth. In the Caribbean, the bandwidth was not good enough for some customers to back up all the VMs over the Internet all the time. That's one of the reasons we skip that, and we charge for that every time you download the backup. AWS will charge the customer.

I rate AWS Backup a seven out of ten.

The use case for AWS Backup is the same as Azure. The only difference is the customer's choice and preference.

AWS Backup is primarily meant for customers with workloads on AWS or using cloud-native applications. This is the most common use case, accounting for about 70% of users.

It is also a good solution for customers with a hybrid on-premises environment and highly scalable data. Traditional storage solutions, such as Spectrum Protect, can be difficult to scale down dynamically. With AWS Backup, customers pay as per their consumption, so they only pay for what they use.

Another advantage of AWS Backup is that customers can choose the storage tiering for their data. They can store different types of data for different lengths, depending on how often it is accessed and how quickly it needs to be retrieved. This can help customers to save money on their storage costs.

AWS is scalable and low-cost with easy configuration.

Hybrid cloud capabilities could be improved.

AWS does have solutions, but it's probably not the best when you have both on-premise data center and Cloud. Unless you bring in AWS Outpost or other AWS solutions, configuring or leveraging AWS backup is not easy. If it's completely Cloud, then it's great. If you've Cloud and on-prem. Then, you have to bring in another AWS product or utility to leverage backup from your on-premise data center.

I have been using AWS Backup for five years.

The product is the most stable across all other cloud providers.

The solution’s scalability is good. We mainly deal with the medium scale with a few enterprise-grade customers.

We deal with enterprise clients, so we need to provide enterprise-grade support. We've to go above and beyond what is defined in our contracts and terms and conditions. AWS is good at delivering on its contractual obligations, but we must constantly exceed their expectations to work with enterprise clients. Within the bounds of our contracts, AWS is excellent.

The customer support is reasonably good.

Positive

AWS Backup is a great solution for AWS-hosted applications. It is easy to configure and manage if you know about backup policies. Using AWS Backup to back up non-AWS applications can be more cumbersome.

If you are hosted on AWS, use AWS Backup. If you are hosted on Azure, use Azure Backup. Cross-platform and cross-cloud backup solutions are not good.

If you have policies, deployment takes a few minutes. The important thing is to establish your backup policy, as defined by the application. The technical work does not take more than a few minutes.

The solution’s pricing is competitive. AWS is being used more by SME industries rather than enterprises.

I've exclusively worked with your cloud-native solutions, including AWS, Azure, and Google Cloud Platform. These are all cloud-native backups and services. Before 2017-2018, I was primarily in your data center space, where we used Spectrum Protect and IBM SAN.

We have a partnership with AWS. We provide managed services for our clients. We expect the customer to have already procured the product and to have a relationship with the vendor. We are a certified MSP for AWS, Azure, and Google.

The solution is a fully managed service. You have to monitor whether the backups are running regularly or not. There are monitoring solutions provided by the AWS. The maintenance is relatively easy and good.

If you are using AWS applications, use AWS Backup. It does not make sense to use a different backup solution on AWS. You can monitor the storage tiering behind your backups, significantly impacting your costs.

Overall, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

I primarily use AWS Backup for backing up RDS and Postgres databases on Amazon RDS. Additionally, I use it for DynamoDB, DocumentDB, and S3 data stores.

What I like about AWS Backup is its simple approach to a complex problem. The ability to set up backups using simple tagging and apply different backup plans and rules based on our needs is valuable. For example, we can set different retention periods for various databases, depending on customer requirements. This tagging and rule-setting feature saves us a lot of time in managing our backups effectively.

One improvement I would like to see in AWS Backup is the implementation of incremental backups, especially for databases like MongoDB. Currently, full snapshots are taken each time, which can be costly for large databases. Incremental backups would help reduce these costs. This is a key requirement for us, and we have already communicated it to AWS support teams. If this isn't addressed, we may need to explore alternative backup solutions, despite the current limitations.

I have been working with AWS Backup for four years.

We haven't had any stability issues with AWS Backup.

AWS Backup is scalable and meets our needs well. We use it in our production environment, where we have around three hundred databases configured, and it handles the workload effectively. We have more than 200 services using AWS Backup.

The technical support for AWS Backup is generally fine. We haven't needed it much due to our experience with the product. Any issues we have faced are more about product features needing improvement rather than support quality.

The initial setup process for AWS Backup was straightforward for us. We used Terraform for deployment without encountering any significant issues. While there are options like AWS Organizations for deploying across multiple accounts, we currently manage around forty environments, which is manageable without additional configurations.

Deploying AWS Backup is relatively straightforward, but ensuring it meets our requirements took about two to three months initially, and less time for subsequent deployments as we became more familiar. It's a complex task to ensure it works across all environments. However, I managed the deployment with minimal resources, mainly myself, with some assistance. AWS Backup is a managed service, so installation wasn't required, only configuration. Maintenance is covered by AWS.

The price of AWS Backup, at about ten cents per gigabyte, could be lower, but it is clear and predictable. We understand our monthly costs and can adjust retention periods accordingly. Calculating the return on investment for AWS Backup is a bit tricky, but overall, it provides value for the money spent.

We use AWS Backup for disaster recovery planning by backing up AWS databases and restoring them as needed. We can perform point-in-time recovery within one region and copy snapshots to another region, such as from Ireland to Frankfurt, to ensure recovery in case of a region outage.

We integrate AWS Backup with other AWS services like RDS using simple tagging. By tagging database instances with a backup plan name, AWS Backup automatically sets up the backup process. It is straightforward and works with various types of data stores.

We are exploring automation capabilities, particularly in automating our restore process for disaster recovery. Our goal is to move beyond occasional manual disaster recovery exercises and establish automated backups and restores, possibly leveraging tools like GitHub Actions for testing. Ensuring that our backups can be reliably restored is crucial, and automation plays a significant role in achieving that.

When it comes to the restore process in AWS Backup, the main issue is the need to specify each database individually for restoration. It would be beneficial to have the ability to restore groups of databases or services together, simplifying the process and saving time. Currently, this feature is not available in AWS Backup, but it would be a valuable improvement for users like me.

I would recommend AWS Backup to other users. It is reliable and effective, and we are satisfied with its value. While additional functionality would be nice, we are happy with it as it is.

Overall, I would rate AWS Backup as an eight out of ten.

We are a solution provider and we use AWS Backup for our customers' companies.

We typically install this product on-premises, although it is easy to extend as a center in the cloud. Many our of customers are multi-cloud, using cloud provides such as Azure, AWS, and Google.

We are able to set up a continuous backup from our customers' on-premise hardware to the cloud.

The most valuable feature is the snapshot capability, where we backup applications to a secondary site.

The restore functionality is an area that needs to be improved because right now, it is not very good. It requires a lot of time to connect the snapshot, identify the files, and restore a single file manually. 

In general, I would like to better manage the granular restoration of files. This is true both in a Linux environment, as well as Windows. A lot of our clients are using Linux for their application servers.

We want to be able to restore either single files or multiple files from one volume. Today, it is very complex because it requires us to restore the full image of the volume. Only after that, can we extract a single file. Ideally, we should be able to extract a single file from a snapshot.

We have been working with AWS Backup for between five and six years.

This is a stable product.

This is a scalable product and we have 1,000 different machines that are being backed up. Our customers are typically enterprise-level companies.

The technical support from Amazon is good.

We don't have much contact with them because I have an assistant engineer, and the two of us know AWS very well.

I have not worked with our cloud-based backup solutions.

For on-premises systems, I work with different products such as Commvault.

The initial setup is very simple. Typically it is very fast to set up, and it is not complex. It does not require much activity from us.

For example, we don't have to install infrastructure on the cloud. The license covers the management of the environment, including updates, and all of this is handled by AWS rather than our customers.

Our customers pay a monthly AWS fee that includes the AWS Backup service.

It is important to pay attention to the consumption within different services and manage it properly. However, this is true for all of AWS and not particularly the Backup service.

The advantage that AWS Backup has over competitors is that it's very simple. It is fully integrated into the cloud services, it's very fast, and it's simple to manage.

This is a product that I can recommend for scenarios that are not too complex. For situations where one consultant wants to manage different on-premises backups in a multi-cloud environment, they require different products. Not a single solution, like AWS Backup.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to pay attention to the data transfer across different availabilities and different regions because it can be a very high cost.  

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use the product to schedule data backup, restoration, and encryption. It helps with real-time data recovery.

AWS Backup provides easy backup/restore solution for our Cloud resources with a low to zero failure rate compared to other solutions.

It is a complete backup solution. It is sufficient for our use cases.

There could be a centralized dashboard with a reporting feature notifying us of daily backup status.

We have been using AWS Backup for five years.

The platform is stable. Once it is set up, I never have to look back at it. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I am extremely satisfied with AWS Backup's scalability and rate it a ten. I don't see any performance degradation during backups.

The technical support services are quite excellent, depending on specific licensing plans.

Positive

We use Commvault for on-premise infrastructure and AWS backup for cloud environments. In comparison, Commvault is more complicated to use than AWS.

The initial setup includes adding a tag to the managed resource. It includes backup plans specifying the frequency. The process is pretty straightforward.

It requires a few hours to complete. One executive is enough to manage the cloud servers. However, it needs more than one executive to extend it to on-premises.

The product is inexpensive. It costs nothing apart from the storage.

I rate AWS Backup an eight out of ten. It meets all the international governance compliance. It is easier to use and set up. It doesn't require any maintenance. It provides an easy data migration process from on-premise to cloud. I strongly recommend AWS Backup over other products.

Use cases include the solution's use for typical backup, restore, and disaster recovery. So, AWS Backup provides a solid service as a disaster recovery solution.

Feature-wise, the valuable ones are the solution's AWS vault and the backup plan. So, the main and useful features are the vault and the vault log, and AWS backup plan.

I haven't thought about what needs improvement in the solution since it is a comprehensive solution for services related to backup and restoration.

I think the solution could be optimized further to make it capable of providing an easier user experience. To create a plan and for all the configuration, one has to do multiple steps, which could be organized in a much simpler way, making the user experience better.

In the future release, the solution should be able to provide its users with some notification when a backup is about to expire.

I have been using AWS Backup for more than a year. Also, there is no version of AWS Backup since it's a managed service by AWS.

I rate the tool's stability a nine out of ten.

I rate the tool's scalability an eight out of ten. AWS Backup is used by admin personnel. So, the user base is quite low. It is used for administration purposes. Our clients who use the solution are enterprise-sized ones.

I rate the tool's technical support an eight out of ten.

Positive

On a scale of one to ten for the initial setup, where one is difficult, and ten is easy, I rate the solution somewhere around seven or eight.

After the creation of the automation script, the deployment process takes a few minutes.

Creating the infrastructure as a code, the script, and then using cloud formation to deploy those scripts are the steps involved in the deployment process.

Price-wise, I rate the solution a six out of ten. One only has to pay for the storage cost of AWS solutions, which is the standard cost provided by AWS.

A person can use it as much as possible, especially if you use Amazon Cloud. Also, the solution is one of the best services provided by AWS. Since it's a managed service and depends on whether you have applications on the cloud, especially on AWS Cloud, I rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We only use the product for backups. We propose it to some clients. 

We like that it is a cloud-native backup solution. Native tools are seamless and less effort is needed when using them.  It is easy to configure. The product itself is user-friendly.

It works well as a backup and as a service. It's not cumbersome at all. 

We're not really looking into areas of improvement right now. We do deployments and migrations and hand them over to the client. It's the client's responsibility to manage everything after that. 

It could be less expensive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. It's robust and very resilient. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

This is a scalable solution. It's easy to expand. 

We've implemented this solution for three or four clients so far.

We don't deal with or offer technical support. I don't have any insights into how well technical support functions. 

We do work with a variety of solutions and advise our clients in terms of what would work best for them.

The solution differs from case to case, project to project. We'll propose and install this solution if the client is looking for some sort of cloud-native offering. 

It's pretty straightforward for us. There is some standard documentation you can reference, which is provided. With the appropriate execution, everything goes smoothly. 

We do the configuration as well and find it pretty easy.

How long it takes to deploy depends on the knowledge level of the resource. When we set it up so that it is like a template that can be replicated, and things can be automated using scripts. The initial implementation takes a bit more time since you are doing everything from scratch. 

We work with multiple clients and do architecting, migrating, designing, and implementing solutions such as this. 

The pricing varies according to a company's goals and requirements. If a company can agree to long-term use, they likely can arrange a discount. 

I'd rate the general cost seven out of ten in terms of affordability. 

Whether we recommend this solution depends on the client's requirements. It is efficient, robust, cost-effective, and resilient. In general, it is something I would tell potential users to look at.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

We are using AWS Backup for 3-2-1 disaster recovery scenarios, records, and retention.

AWS Backup has helped out organization by overall increasing our disaster recovery capabilities. Additionally, it allowed us to support different disaster recovery scenarios.

The most valuable features of AWS Backup are point-in-time recovery and support resources.

AWS Backup could improve because you cannot use Glacier for anything but EFS.

I have been using AWS Backup for approximately one year.

We didn't see any issues with the AWS Backup service going down or unavailable. However, occasionally a backup is corrupt and not restorable. There were no issues where there was no solution to fix it.

AWS Backup is highly scalable. There was not a time when we had to restrict the amount of data being used.

We have cloud engineers and operations support teams that are using this solution. We adapted the solution company-wide. As AWS Backup adds more features we will be adopting them throughout the company.

The support from AWS Backup is good, sometimes they're quick to respond the first time, but more complex issues can take days. You would say something to the support and then you would have to wait a whole day to get any feedback.

We did not use any other solution previously.

The initial implementation of AWS Backup is straightforward. We deploy everything infrastructure as code this was where the most amount of work was.

From concept to implementation of AWS Backup, it took three months.

We did the implementation of AWS Backup in-house using Terraform.

You need a couple of engineers and at least one support role that would do the restores and other operations.

We've had to restore backups occasionally, but we haven't had the type of disaster scenarios that we're planning for, such as hijacking and ransomware. The return on investment is priceless.

There are no licensing costs for AWS Backup. You pay only for the amount of backup storage you use and then the data transferred between regions. Overall AWS Backup is priced reasonably.

We did not find any other solution comparable to AWS Backup.

If you don't have a comprehensive backup strategy I would recommend AWS Backup.

I rate AWS Backup an eight out of ten.

I would give a higher rating if we could use Glacier. We have to keep all these backups around for years, it costs a lot of money. If we were able to keep the data in Glacier it would save a lot of costs.