AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery Reviews

My purpose for utilizing CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is to streamline our disaster recovery procedure. In the event of any issue arising in our on-premise infrastructure, we aim to quickly switch over to AWS. Our setup is designed to facilitate this process, and we frequently conduct tests to ensure its reliability. While we have yet to experience an actual disaster, we conduct multiple tests annually. Furthermore, as a partner, I implement this solution for our clients. Currently, we have five customers using it, with the number steadily increasing.

We have the solution deployed on-premise located on the Amazon AWS infrastructure.

Although we have not yet utilized it for an actual disaster, one of our clients has been affected by ransomware or similar attacks. It is crucial to be able to quickly restore their infrastructure outside of their primary infrastructure, and that is exactly what we are accomplishing with this solution. Since the client we are working with is not a large enterprise, they do not have the financial resources or budget to create a secondary site for disaster recovery. Our solution enables them to be prepared without having to allocate funds for a complete data center to perform the restoration.

The most valuable aspect of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is its instant block replication feature. This allows us to perform live block verification and eliminates the need to concern ourselves with recovery point objectives. This capability is particularly advantageous for critical workloads.

The failback could be improved. It should be more intuitive.

I have been using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery for approximately one and a half years.

The stability could be improved. There is sometimes a lag in the replication and we have to reinstall the agent. It does not happen all the time but when it does in a particular server we need to reset it. A lot of our customers are relying on this solution and this is not a good scenario.

I rate the scalability of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery a ten out of ten.

I have worked with the support once and I had a good experience. 

I rate the support of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery a nine out of ten.

The initial setup of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery was simple with the new interface.

Both the customer and I are responsible for implementing the solution.

We have seen a return on our investment. When compared to the cost of building a complete data center, the solution is much more affordable. However, it can still be expensive for small customers since the snapshots require significant storage space. While the solution itself may not seem costly on paper, keeping several days of snapshots can increase the price. This is due to AWS EDS storage costs since that is what we are using for the snapshots.

I rate the price of CloudEndure Disaster Recovery a six out of ten.

Before implementing CloudEndure Disaster Recovery, my advice to others is to thoroughly read the documentation. We made some mistakes during our initial implementation, which caused problems and incurred additional costs. We attempted to failover a few servers just to test the solution but later realized that we couldn't simply delete them and resync from on-premises. We had to perform a full rollback, which we were not prepared to do at the time. As a result, we were unable to stop the server running on AWS and had to delete it entirely, causing us to start the synchronization process from scratch. This was a significant issue, especially since the server was a large five-terabyte space server. By carefully reading the documentation, you can avoid making such mistakes.

I rate CloudEndure Disaster Recovery an eight out of ten.

I've used the solution for migrations. I worked for a company that went Chapter 13, and we had to migrate into the cloud.

I've used it for disaster recovery as well. 

It is easy to use. I haven't had any issues with the client and console. 

When we tested it, it worked fine. 

The solution is free to use. 

The setup is pretty straightforward.

It's stable.

The solution is scalable.

Technical support is helpful and responsive. 

When I tested a failover, it didn't work. I set up a test, deleted the source, and went to fail it back, and it didn't work. 

The solution doesn't need any new features.

AWS is no longer using the solution anymore. 

I've been using this solution for about two years, before AWS bought it.

I'd rate the stability nine out of ten. There are no bugs or glitches and it doesn't crash or freeze. 

I'd rate the scalability nine out of ten.

We do not have plans to increase usage at this time. 

I'm not sure how many people are using it. 

Technical support was excellent. 

Positive

The initial setup was straightforward. It was not complex at all. 

I did witness an ROI while using it. 

The solution was free to use. It was just the price of the storage, and that was it. It gave us 2,000 licenses, which is enough for anybody.

We are using an older version from before AWS bought it. 

This is a good product. I'd rate it nine out of ten.

We use CloudEndure Disaster Recovery for backing up our data and for recovery. My customers have some databases. They were looking for the DR solution.  CloudEndure is easy, and block-level replication will happen. Whenever my primary site goes down, the DR site will be up, and the data will be there. The DR data is there, and it will be a replication back will be my primary site. 

I have been using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery for approximately five years.

The solution is dependent on the network bandwidth. For example, if they have a bandwidth of 10Mbps the solution will run a little heavier. If the bandwidth is good the solution runs well.

CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is charging clients $20 to do the DR backups. It is an expensive solution.

I rate CloudEndure Disaster Recovery an eight out of ten.

I am a solution architect and I analyze customer's information in order to suggest products for them. CloudEndure Disaster Recovery is one of the solutions that I am familiar with.

It is used for backup and restore operations.

For regular backup and restore solutions, this product is fine.

I would like to see better support for creating and working with archives. Right now, it is difficult and painful to do. When you are working with multiple terabytes, there are no good solutions.

I have been using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery for the past five or six years.

I have worked with many different vendors and the choice of solution depends on the customer's requirements.

I would rate this solution a five out of ten.

The entire company uses it for reports we are sent to research. We also have reports that we write for various clients and it helps us look for our research requirements. All of the data and information is stored on the cloud. There were a few instances in which the entire system got hacked. There was an issue with the system, the hard drive, so we used the cloud backup to retrieve all the information from three to four years down the line.

The three things that could improvement are:

• The user interface
• Customer support
• Recovery time for the current customer query

We have been using CloudEndure Disaster Recovery for the last two years. 

It is stable. 

It is scalable for large nodes. 

The initial setup is pretty straightforward, it's not complex.

I would recommend this product for cloud-based solutions. I can't recommend it for Azure. 

I would rate it an eight out of ten. 

Enterprise disaster recovery.

We went from an organization with minimal to no disaster recovery. I was able to spin up the disaster recovery environment with AWS rather quickly and meet business requirements. We continue to build off of it as well. It is in place, and it is simple enough where we can continue to add licenses and systems, and swap systems out too. As we remove some servers, we can always add new ones in with the same license.

The speedy, quick configuration and installation was the initial reason for the product and what I enjoyed about it. Now, it just continues to be simple and works well.

One item that they did fix was, and this was when we first started, they had only one type of license. Then they did come out with a Tier 2 type of license, which costs a little less money. It updated a little less frequently, which seems to fit our needs. That was definitely helpful. 

There are some servers where we do get failures with the CloudEndure client. I don't know necessarily if it's the CloudEndure issue, but it's something that my engineers fixed on our end. It's always something that's easily repairable, though. There is a constant update of the servers. 

It's a fairly simple product once the infrastructure's in place. We did hire a third-party to help us build the AWS infrastructure to work with CloudEndure, but once it was up and running, it  pretty much runs on its own now.

There were no stability issues, once it was up. We built the environment once, but that was because we migrated to the additional licenses. However, once it was up, the only instability was just some random servers. There was pretty much always fixed on the client side, and usually it was Linux machine.

I don't recall any CloudEndure crashes with server usage.

We just did an upgrade, and it went fairly smoothly. Once it is on the machines, if we are not changing anything around, it seems to work fine. Even the reporting features on the dashboard are pretty cool. You can see what state all the servers are in. You can get reporting if something is not updating, so the visual stations are good as well.

Technical support has always been responsive. We engage with a third-party to work with us on CloudEndure and the infrastructure, so we work with them most of the time. For any of our dealings with CloudEndure, they have been pretty responsive.

We had an old school type of DR with replication. 

Since we put CloudEndure in place, which is our DR for our Tier 1 and 2 servers, replicating out from our facility to AWS, and it has been bare-metal to bare-metal type of disaster recovery. This is our first cloud-based DR solution.

The setup was fairly simple, and we spun it up pretty quickly. We did have a third-party help us, so most of the effort was putting into building the AWS environment, but that wasn't too difficult. We designed the AWS environment, then on a smaller subset, we installed the client and the client started replicating, and that was our initial test. Then from there, we kept adding servers.

It helped us build our disaster recovery. Our organization was moving towards the cloud in a lot of areas, so it saves us ample dollars from having to buy hardware for disaster recovery. We even used it for other cloud systems for disaster recovery as well. The other piece to it was not relying on any specific type of server. It worked on our Window servers and our Linux servers, because it is versatile.

The pricing is better now that they had come out with the Tier 2 which replicates a little less often. In comparison to what I would have been spending with any other type of solution, the pricing is fair. 

Where the price adds up, there are CloudEndure licenses, then there is the AWS environment, and finally, there is the AWS storage, so cumulatively, it adds up. The license would be better if it cheaper. I do not think it is great pricing, but I would say it's fair.

Through my third-party, I locked-in for the long-term. I received some price discounts from a three-year deal versus a one-year, which I probably question a bit now. It forced us into a certain amount of licenses. From year-to-year, I can't really play with it that often or drop it if needed. I am sort of locked into a certain amount of serviceable licenses because of the long-term deal. This has nothing to do with CloudEndure. This is between the third-party and me.

When we first went with this, it was we did lay out three options. We had somebody help us with making this decision. It was CloudEndure, it was moving towards a metal to metal type of DR solution, and the other one that we had up and running was VMware. I don't even know if they sell the product anymore, but VMware had a DR type of solution. We used the three of those, and we were testing them. VMware didn't seem to cut it. From a cost savings, it seemed like it made sense to go with CloudEndure and AWS versus a metal to metal type of DR solution. We did have a VMware solution in place, but we canceled it.

I haven't really compared other cloud-based DR solutions, so I can't compare it to anything else.

I was able to build this up real quick and testing has always been successful as well. I have had issues bringing data back to the facility, but the restore has always worked with CloudEndure.

Before you jump into it, test it and be aware of the bandwidth. We did have to put in a dedicated AWS direct line for our building. Make sure if you are going to put something in place like this that you have the proper bandwidth. The bandwidth is a constant upload communication to the AWS DR environment, so if you do not have the proper bandwidth, it will definitely eat up your internet line.

Disaster recovery.

I wouldn't necessarily say there has been a particular improvement. This is a DR solution, so we are able to meet the disaster recovery requirements of our applications.

• Ease of use
• Reliability
• Cost
• Stability

Definitely there should be better logging. From a customer perspective I would like to see more logs on what is happening. If there is an issue, I would like to know what the problem is. Right now, we have to depend on the support of the vendor to check and let us know, because we don't have access to a lot of logging information.

Also the UI could be a little sleeker.

There have been no issues. 

Scalability is pretty good. It's seamless; it can do it automatically. 

Their phone support is pretty good. The only thing I would like to see is, they don't have a formal ticketing system. There is no way I can go back and see what questions we had six months back, what issues we had, and how they were resolved. But otherwise, the support is fine.

This is the first solution we are using in the cloud. In the datacenters there are other solutions used, but this is the first time we are using a DR solution in the AWS cloud.

It was straightforward. It was pretty easy.

I feel the product's pricing is a good value. Licensing is pretty straightforward.

We went looking at other options but the market is not really mature yet. I don't think there are numerous options, at least for me, on the public cloud side. We did look at a couple of other options, but we didn't go into detail, to evaluate them. We evaluated CloudEndure and we were pretty much happy with it so we just went with it.

We did look at Dell EMC, NetBackup, things like that, but we didn't really pursue them.

Planning ahead is important, just making sure you really understand what you need before finalizing the solution.

We use it for disaster recovery. It appears to be working fine for us.

We were in a different environment which had its own tool for performing disaster recovery. When we moved into AWS, we decided to move forward with this tool for disaster recovery. 

It provides our disaster recovery solution. It works fine in our tests.

Disaster recovery. It is what we have the product for.

Sometimes, one of the servers will get behind for one reason or another, and it does not notify us when that happens. This could be a helpful improvement.

Sometimes a server will get a bit behind. 

There has never been any issues with scalability. They license us on a per machine basis. We have a set number of machines, which we have licensed.

Technical support has been very good. They usually respond quickly to our requests.

Our group did not use a different solution, but our data center had a different solution. When we went to AWS, the data center people were not able to support us with a disaster recovery solution, so we looked and chose CloudEndure.

The initial setup is really straightforward.

We were happy with the pricing that they gave us.

We investigated several different options and chose this one.

Follow the write-up. It is very good.