AWS Backup Reviews

AWS Backup is a basic backup that we can use if we want. We can directly back up EC2 instances in AWS without using any third-party applications.

AWS Backup is an AWS service that's not fully mature and needs to grow. It doesn't give us many options. AWS Backup doesn't have many features, and it's complicated.

The solution's reporting features and restore features can be improved. The solution's backup schedule time should be improved because it does not start at the scheduled time. So, it's not a fully matured backup product.

AWS Backup should include multiple restoring options.

I have been using AWS Backup for more than three years.

AWS Backup is a stable solution.

AWS Backup is a scalable solution.

AWS Backup's initial setup is easy.

AWS Backup is a very cheap solution.

Since people prefer the same vendor, I would suggest AWS Backup to other users.

Overall, I rate AWS Backup a seven out of ten.

We use AWS backup for the VMware environment.

It is a good backup solution for monthly and central backups. It is useful for CR S3 Bucket and moving it.

It also saves costs and is quick.

They should work on their visual capabilities. 

We have to restore the entire stack. We can only restore particular files on particular days. I hope they can help to release storage and instead of a specific file, we can access the entire stack.

I have experience using AWS Backup. 

There are some issues regarding stability, especially when the user doesn't have much experience with the solution and they don't work with the solution on a daily basis. 

The technical support depends on the vendor.

We previously used Symantec solutions. 

The initial setup was easy and it didn't take much time. It doesn't require more than an hour, until and unless anything specific is required. It has specific scripts so that specific backup users can have access to different environments. 

Since we are a small organization, we didn't have much technical expertise and had a vendor install it. It also doesn't require much maintenance until and unless you have a large organization with huge data, you might need to maintain it. 

It is not a bad solution. It majorly depends on your organization, as each tool has its own flaws and advantages. If you take direct support from Amazon, you might have a better experience. In our case, we are dependent on the vendor which has delays. However, we are working to change it. I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use the solution for disaster recovery features.

The solution is easy to set up and manage.

The solution's price could be better than a few other vendors.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight.

The solution is scalable. I rate its scalability an eight.

The solution's technical support team is friendly. It manages critical problems efficiently.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup process is easy.

The solution's price is much cheaper than some vendors but more expensive than others.

The solution is easy to use. I rate it a nine out of ten.

Our primary use case for AWS Backup is for SAP systems, including all of HANA databases.

The most valuable features we have found are the flexibility in the services offered.

The AWS Backup backend reporting is a major area that needs improvement. We would be very excited if we can see some reporting, such as trends. We do understand that there are reports available for S3 Bucket, in which the AWS backend stores the data. However, if we can receive holistic reporting, then it would be very helpful for us.

I have been using AWS Backup for approximately three years.

AWS Backup is stable.

We have not found any issues with the scalability of AWS Backup. It is highly scalable because there are no size limitations to the S3 Bucket.

We have approximately 15 users using this solution in my organization which are mostly the backup team. 

The technical support is amazing, it is the best.

We have previously used Data Protector but the stability and the support were very poor for the data, from the data protector side. It can be a possibility that the competencies for that as well were not also good. We addressed several cases to Micro Focus as well, but we did not receive a good response. Soon after we decided to go ahead with the AWS backend. We were happy with the tool and all the POCs that we have done.

The initial setup is very easy.

I did the implementation myself.

There is a lot of flexibility with the services and pricing. The price is reasonable when compared to other products. This is very good for us.

I have evaluated Micro Focus Backup tools.

When comparing AWS Backup to any other backup solutions at the present time. If your product or if your systems are already on AWS, it would be highly recommended to go ahead with the AWS backend. If your systems are not on AWS, then you can choose any other cloud platform, such as Micro Focus Backup tools.

I would rate the solution higher if the reporting was available. However, it's a pretty new product for Amazon as well. We do understand the complexities, but there are other certain factors that we have seen that are causing us some difficulties, such as we cannot directly download files from S3. We have to utilize the AWS backend and only then can we download the files. If they can add this feature, it would be very helpful to allow us the direct download of files from S3 and then we can restore it directly on the HANA.

I rate AWS Backup an eight out of ten.

We use it for server backup, which is done weekly.

I'm also using AWS for QuickSight. It's been about four months since I'm using it for some statistical analysis. I'm still on that project, which is also AWS.

When I was using an on-premises backup, there was an external hard drive or something like that. I had a backup server, but I had a few problems related to transfer when I had to restore something that I have deleted. I had to wait for after-office hours to do something like that, but now I just have to send a mail. Within one hour, I have my restored file.

Only the price could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about two years. 

We do not do anything in terms of contacting AWS support. A company we use for support does that for us.

We use a company for support. It is an IT company in Mauritius, and they normally do everything for us. They do the deployment and everything. We just have to use their support.

We don't use a lot of space, only approximately 900 GB, so the price is reasonable. For standing, it's okay. We normally do a payment to SSML, and they are the ones who pay over there. It is around $100 monthly.

I think we compared AWS and Azure, but we decided to take AWS because it is ranked as the number one for backup support. It was also about the cost etc. Normally, the directors make the final decision, and they were the ones who finalized about using AWS. The same applies to QuickSight. The director, who finalized it, is also the CEO of another company, and over there, he was using QuickSight, and he wanted to implement it here in our company.

For me, it's great. I would rate AWS Backup a nine out of ten. 

AWS is the primary platform that we use for our internal needs and we are trying to best use whatever comes with it. So far, we are happy with AWS and we have 30% or 40% of our workflows implemented there. For example, we are very big SAP users and we use SAP HANA on AWS. In the future, we expected almost everything to be in AWS, with perhaps 10% of our work in Azure.

We use the AWS Backup as a service to perform native backups and recovery of files and other data. It is also our disaster recovery solution.

The most valuable feature is its ease of use.

One of the limitations of AWS Backup is that it only does file-based copying. It is not as good as some of the external products for handling things like the Oracle Database backups. For example, it lacks the ability to do database backups and differential backups. It is doesn't keep a schedule, and it doesn't keep full track of success and failure. Overall, the functionality is pretty limited, although it does meet our requirements. For places that have deeper requirements, they use different software to do their backups.

In the future, I would like AWS Backup to be more robust and be able to handle database-level backups. It should support Oracle, MySQL, and other types of databases.

Better integration with standard backup management tools that provide control, such as the ability to schedule backups, would be an improvement.

We are been using AWS Backup for more than two years.

This is a stable solution.

AWS Backup is scalable. It is used to back up environments and not really for end-users. In our internal IT departments, we have probably 50 people using it.

We have reached out to AWS support and our technical architecture manager has a relationship with them. We provide constant feedback with respect to how the product is and what improvements need to be done. The developers are aware and they try to improve the features, but it's a slow process.

The initial setup is very simple. There is not much to it. We just need to run some primitive scripts.

The suitability of this solution for backup and recovery depends on the requirements. I would only recommend it for organizations that need a very simple solution.

There is a lot of work that they need to do in the backup space because, at this time, it only does very basic backups. They don't appear to be prioritizing the building of a robust backup solution. It seems that they are more interested in having us work with another vendor, rather than them creating something that is already available.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We have implemented AWS Backup for our clients. WS Backup has been used for disaster recovery plans.

We have automated backups in many client solutions. For example, one of our clients is NIS. We schedule backups for the night since their system has lower traffic outside of daytime working hours. 

We automate the scheduling with Python scripts and a cron job. During the night, the backup is created and stored in S3. After a set period, the backup is deleted as per the schedule.

Our team is fairly experienced with restoring data, and they don't find any major difficulties in restoring data. Because the expertise of the team also matters.

We have standard procedures for securing client environments. This includes tools like WAF for DDoS protection and AWS services like Inspector. Moreover, we utilize a variety of AWS's inbuilt security features.

RDS backup is one of the most crucial components of any client's cloud environment, so we generally use that. 

Additionally, we store EBS snapshots in S3.

The integration with other products has also been easy. 

There is room for improvement in customer service and support. 

For additional functionalities, it should be more intelligent, like more AI-capabilities. 

I have been familiar with this product for three years now. 

I would rate the stability of the product an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution a ten out of ten. 

I have issues with the customer service and support. 

Neutral

The implementation is easy. 

The clients pay for the whole AWS bundle. It is an affordable solution. 

I would recommend using this product. AWS Backup is easy to use and implement. There's no complexity when i compare it with other similar products for company tech.

Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We bought it as a service and deployed it. We use it to define each of our instances that we back up like the backup policy and the retention policy.

The replication in the recovery region is the most valuable feature. 

This backup tool does the full backup of the entire snapshot server. I would like to have the option to not do the full server backup. 

We have been using AWS Backup for three years. 

The stability is good. 

Scalability is good. We have around five to six users. 

Technical support responds quickly.

We used a different backup solution from AWS. It was a more user-friendly version. AWS Backup was developed from a command-line application tool. The other solution was a more user-friendly version but it did the same thing.

The initial setup was simple. It took one to two days.

The licensing is not straightforward. You have to pay extra. 

My advice to someone considering this solution is to use it for its disaster recovery capabilities.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. In the next release, I would like that when a backup fails, for it to try again automatically, which is doesn't do now. I would also like to have the ability to do a partial backup of the server.