AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Reviews

I have worked with AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for the past year. My feedback is that when we compare it, it's a good thing to have a centralized backup. When your stack is on AWS, it is very helpful, but I think when you have multi-cloud, that's where it may not be a great product.

Also, from the cost side, it is good. The best use case for this would be if you're in AWS and you want to try things quickly without the actual disaster recovery cost that you usually have to incur.

However, the challenge is the EBS snapshot. At the end of the day, they have snapshots, and they do have EBS snapshots which they capture. We ended up not using it, but we explored it for our own disaster recovery solutions that we were evaluating.

I appreciate the automated orchestration of recovery processes in this solution. That's a good thing, especially once you are able to configure something with this tool. I haven't tested the automated recovery, but they do support it. It is beneficial, especially integration with Route 53 and automatically using Route 53 to switch to a different region directly.

Because it has native integrations with all the Route 53 features, that's a good aspect. The part I really appreciated about it was they're not just AWS Backup; along with that, they give you an option to quickly do the drills. If you want to conduct DR drills, it's very useful.

I don't think there is any bad feature in AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery as such. It's more of when you do disaster recovery, you think of it more holistically. You want flexibility in terms of options. I would say it did not provide enough flexibility for all our backup needs. It had one single way of just supporting the EBS backup, or you can say volume-level backup. But let's say you want to integrate with your current backup solution; that kind of flexibility is what I would say is missing.

In terms of improvements for AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, for any backup and disaster products, I would want it when companies are trying to evaluate these products, the biggest challenge is you want the most cost-optimal way because it's insurance.

AWS is already highly available, and you can have your infrastructure just in multiple AZs, and your life will be fine, considering the low probability of an AZ going down because of AWS's scale. You do disaster recovery basically for insurance and compliance, so it's crucial to ensure that it's very cost-optimal. There are different models that balance cost and recovery time objectives, but I have not seen any innovation; these are very old practices.

Additionally, while the storage side is key because you want your data to be there on both sides, the speed at which you can build your infrastructure also matters. It's mostly about data storage. For data storage, if you architect your storage properly, you can actually bring it up faster. For example, with a database cluster, if your database size doesn't exceed certain limits, it will significantly improve recovery time. However, these guidelines aren't offered by backup tools, as they sort of work against them. Still, to make backup cost-optimal, it is not just about the tool; it's also about how you architect your infrastructure.

I have experience working with AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for about six or seven months.

Being an enterprise customer, I find the technical support from AWS very supportive.

Regarding the security features, including encryption provided by AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, security is dependent on the user's needs. Encryption is something you need to enable based on your data and where you're storing it. I don't remember if they have an option where, by default, whatever backup you have is secured, since what you're storing is still in your own S3 or something. I think they charge you based on the amount of data. It's a shared responsibility model, but I believe they do offer a feature where you can enable encryption at rest and encryption in transit for your data, but it's our responsibility as customers; I don't think AWS does it for you.

For AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, regarding the deployment model, we mostly tried the backup restore option. We typically haven't explored the other deployment options they offer yet. We start with a very simple backup restore and chose it for specific use cases, MongoDB backup, but as of right now, we haven't looked at it more holistically. Overall, we felt that it doesn't support all the types of backup that we have.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery an eight.

I use the solution to deploy a Docker image application. It is hosted on GitHub, and the servers we run on are not ECR.

What I like about ECR AWS is that it is a fully managed service, so I don't need to manage the underlying infrastructure or worry about scalability in AWS concerning building, maintenance, security, and high availability. 

It offers seamless integration with services like ACL, EKS, and Fargate for deploying containerized applications. It works great with AWS, and it is flexible to use a public repository for open-source projects or a private repository for secure storage.

In its current state, ECL integrates with CloudWatch for basic logging and monitoring, yet improvements could include more detailed logs for specific actions, like when I perform actions such as push or pull. This would detail user activity directly in the ACL console for easier debugging and auditing. 

Additionally, an improved AWS pricing model is needed. AWS charges for storage and data transfer, which can add up, especially with large images or frequent pulls. Improvement should focus on offering more storage or better volume discounts for long-term use. It would also be beneficial to allow free pulls within the AWS account and vision. 

Moreover, image scanning for vulnerabilities can sometimes be slow, especially for large images. Speeding up the scanning process or providing optimized scanning for critical workflows would be welcome advancements.

I have used it for about seven months now.

Since the time I have been using ECL, my application on AWS has not broken down. I have not had any issues with it for now. It is working well. It is very good and very reliable.

I never had to contact the support team.

I didn't really use Azure. However, that was in my last organization before I joined this new one. 

I would rate AWS nine out of ten.

My main use case for AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is to minimize downtime and data loss with fast recovery of our on-premises and cloud-based applications using storage, minimum compute, and point-in-time recovery.

I created this service for our resources using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, so if something happens, we can recover it from launch using a launch template or using a template from the point-in-time recovery point.

For our day-to-day use, I use launch settings in AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery service to control how we recover an instance and launch an instance from the source, deploying in different availability zones and different regions for the disaster recovery.

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery has positively impacted my organization by allowing us to replicate and recover our AWS components and services, so if we somehow lost our data or a resource or a disaster occurred, we can recover it from the source, enabling us to recover our data and volumes and customer things.

One specific outcome from using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is the recovery time, as we are able to recover our resources and services when a disaster occurs, and it is fast to recover data compared to doing so manually.

The best features that AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery offers include the ability to create custom actions for AWS Systems Manager using command automation, along with a predefined set of actions such as a CloudWatch agent, volume free space detection, instance pre-connection, verify volume integration, and creating an AMI from the source instance, which are the features I appreciate.

Out of those features, I find the AMI creation from the source machine and volume integrity the most valuable, as we use most of the volumes and instances on our AWS account, making that feature what we use most, and I appreciate it.

I believe AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery can be improved by providing more features, such as an automated or AI-based solution that detects issues before they happen, which is a feature I would want to see.

I have been using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for two years.

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is stable, but it can be improved.

The scalability of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is good, as we have experienced very much scalable resources and infrastructure deployment using it, so it is indeed good.

The customer support for AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is good, as they provide support based on priority, which I find beneficial.

I did not previously use a different solution as we were doing it manually.

Regarding pricing, AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery takes a price based on how much you recover and how much you store, and the setup is easy.

I have seen a return on investment, as using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery allows us to save and recover data, improving our customer SLAs, and since we are not facing downtime, our money is saved.

Before choosing AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery, we did not evaluate other options, as we had a clear mindset that we wanted to use disaster recovery.

If you want to recover your instance whenever some disaster occurs and you want to deploy your resources in multiple availability zones and regions while ensuring that you don't lose your customer data or your data and service configurations, and wish to improve the SLA, you can use AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery.

I chose a rating of eight out of ten for AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery because it can provide more features such as automated detection and AI integrations that would remove manual or human efforts, allowing for improvement.

We are using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for backup purposes in our company.

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is convenient because it is cloud-based technology.

The strong points are the stability and scalability of the solution, as well as the convenience of it being cloud-based.

The cost of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is seen as expensive.

We have been using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for five or six years.

I rate the stability of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery as nine out of ten.

I rate the scalability of AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery as nine out of ten.

The customer service and technical support for AWS are very good and helpful. I rate it ten out of ten.

Positive

We did not work with any other products before AWS.

We use a third-party consultant company to help with integration.

The pricing of AWS is considered expensive compared to other options.

We have also used Microsoft Azure as an alternate solution.

I would recommend AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery to other users.

The primary use case for AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is to ensure data replication and protection across diverse environments without the need for hypervisor integration. 

The product's most valuable features include its ease of deployment, cost-effectiveness due to AWS's pay-as-you-go pricing model, and continuous data protection.

The product could be improved by incorporating more AI-driven automation for deployment and additional security features. These enhancements would make the solution even more user-friendly and secure.

I have been using AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery for several years.

The product is stable. 

The platform offers excellent scalability, allowing it to accommodate the needs of both small-scale environments and large enterprises without significant changes to the setup.

The technical support has been effective, providing necessary assistance and resolving issues promptly.

Positive

We previously used solutions like Double-Take and Carbon. We switched to AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery because of its versatility in deployment across different environments without requiring specific hardware or hypervisor dependencies.

The initial setup can vary in complexity depending on the specific environment and setup requirements. While the deployment process is generally straightforward, detailed planning and configuration are essential to ensure a successful implementation.

The implementation was handled by our in-house team.

The ROI has been substantial, primarily due to its cost-effective pricing model. It reduces downtime and data loss during disaster recovery scenarios.

We evaluated several other options, including traditional on-premises disaster recovery solutions and cloud-based offerings.

AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is a robust and reliable solution for disaster recovery needs. However, thorough planning and regular monitoring are crucial to maximizing its benefits and ensuring seamless operation.

I rate it a nine. 

If there is a data leak, incident, or compliance issue, auditors may want to verify whether there is a policy and plan in place for utilizing AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery. 

As part of a strategic approach, I have been part of a team ensuring compliance with various regulations, including HIPAA compliance. I have contributed to developing strategies to satisfy audits and inspections from various government bodies. These strategies outline the plans and features to be utilized if needed.

AWS, as a cloud platform, helps build trust in its services. There have been incidents where clients using Amazon services faced security breaches, but these stories seem more frequent with Microsoft. This might be a personal bias, and others may have different experiences. AWS proactively protects its reputation by addressing issues and investing heavily in its tools, app tech, and engineers.

Pricing could be improved.

The solution is stable because we haven't had any incidents.

It's scalable because of the value and investment it has made in terms of capacity.

Every business survives because of its reputation. In case of any disaster, AWS cannot guarantee 100% security, but it helps protect the company's reputation. It also assists in providing remedies to solve any particular problems that may arise. AWS is a platform that supports businesses.

It has pay-as-you-go pricing. The cost will be different if you are not utilizing it as often as possible because there are costs beforehand and after an incident.

If you are using AWS for your disaster recovery, it's important to use AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery to ensure continuity in case of any failures. Having a strategic approach means considering the cost of disaster recovery as part of your overall planning. 

Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We were using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery as a backup for websites when we had a double ISP outage.

CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is a fairly stable solution.

The solution never reduced our system's downtime. It would take us about a day to get the network configured properly for even doing a network failover test. The solution's orchestration capabilities did not simplify our disaster recovery process.

The solution's network setup and a lot of the control tower setup could be improved. The solution should provide more ease of use for the creation of cloud appliances for firewalls.

I have been using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery for three years.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten for stability.

I rate the solution a five or six out of ten for scalability.

The solution's initial setup was fairly complex, and the company that did the initial setup for us messed up a couple of times.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is difficult and ten is easy, I rate the solution's initial setup a one or two out of ten.

The solution was deployed by three people from my team and two engineers from the company.

On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten.

The solution's replication was fine. We faced issues when we actually tried to utilize it. Every time we made a big change to any of the on-premise servers that were being replicated, we'd always have to change our replication engines, sizing, and the disc it's written on. Otherwise, it would end up taking around 30 days for a small monthly Windows update to replicate.

I would not recommend CloudEndure Disaster Recovery to other users because of all the issues we had with the wrong sizing and the fact that there are better solutions in the market.

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

For the CloudEndure DR, I have been using this for Oracle E-Business Suite and Oracle OBIEE. I've used it for the operating system and directory services as well.

The ability to clone is very helpful.

The installation process is very easy.

The solution's cost is reasonable. It's on the cheaper side and not too expensive for users. 

It is a scalable product. 

In terms of stability, it's reliable.

I have not seen any areas that need improvement at this time.

I've been working on the solution for the last two years.

The solution is stable. It's reliable. there are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

The product can scale quite well. it's not a problem. 

I haven't actually worked with technical support. I've managed to resolve any outstanding issues. 

It's very easy to set up this product. It's not overly difficult at all.

Once it is set up, it's not too hard to manage it. You only need one person to do so. You don't need a whole big team. 

We are able to install the solution ourselves. 

The cost is very reasonable. 

We are partners with Amazon.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.