Azure Backup Reviews

The product is used for disaster recovery. We worked for a bank that needed disaster recovery. The bank was using a VMware solution. They also had some critical virtual machines. So, we deployed the solution for them.

The tool has a lot of features. It is really useful.

We faced some issues synchronizing the information in Azure when the storage was changed. We have to troubleshoot a lot. We do not know the reason for the issue.

I use the solution in my organization.

The tool is stable.

The tool is scalable. Only three to four companies use the solution in our region.

Our customers contact the support team to troubleshoot their issues.

I have used Nutanix. There was a big difference in the cost of Nutanix and Azure. Azure has a pay-as-you-go model. Azure is better than Nutanix.

The initial setup was straightforward. It is a cloud solution. We download the agent and scan for the VMs on-premise. Then, we connect the on-premise server with Azure. Later, we do the network and storage configuration.

We save money because we do not need a data center. We pay only for storage, and it is not very expensive.

The product is not expensive. We just pay for the storage. The storage is not expensive.

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

I utilized Azure Backup for the purpose of backing up and restoring data. Specifically, I performed a recovery operation by transferring data from a single location to one of several designated locations. Our objective is to replicate the data from the original location to a secondary location, ensuring that we can restore it from the alternate site in the event of any unforeseen disruptions.

Azure Backup provides support for virtual machines. To get started, we must install the agent on the VM, allowing us to initiate backups and store the data in our designated storage. By leveraging the backup data, we can then enable the site recovery feature. Initially, we must create the site recovery configuration, where we identify the purpose and requirements of our setup. Additionally, we need to create an account and subscription to facilitate this process. Within the subscription, we gain the ability to migrate or replicate our backups from one location to another, ensuring data loss prevention measures are in place which has improved our organization's functionality.

The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is the file recovery and file vault.

Azure lacks sufficient solutions for a particular scenario, we may need to resort to using third-party applications. In such cases, these applications can be employed to facilitate backup, replication, and the efficient utilization of internet connectivity and bandwidth. They enable us to effectively manage and transfer data while ensuring optimal utilization of network resources. However, it would be a benefit if we did not have to use third-party applications for these operations.

As an additional solution for prospective clients, we can implement Digital Rights Management (DRM) or high availability measures. By setting up DRM or establishing high availability configurations, we can ensure that services remain operational even in the event of downtime. This approach guarantees uninterrupted production and minimizes any negative impact. To deliver this type of solution to clients, the vendor will need to create and provide an architecture and solution that ensures zero downtime.

I have been using Azure Backup for approximately seven years.

I rate the stability of Azure Backup a seven out of ten.

We have engineers using this solution who report to me.

We use the solution regularly and we plan to increase usage.

I rate the scalability of Azure Backup a seven out of ten.

I rate the support of Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

Positive

I have used Veeam Backup and Veritas Backup previously. I switched to Azure Backup because we are able to have flexible deployment methods.

The initial setup required some assistance. The deployment depends on the company's size and environment. 

The first stage of our deployment is accessing the client's information, such as environment size, the reason for use, and what deployment model we are interested in.

I rate the initial setup of Veeam Backup & Replication a seven out of ten.

I am able to the deployment of this solution in some cases. However, if it is a large environment I will need assistance. We need approximately two to three engineers for the deployment, but it depends on the requirements. We could need more people to assist. The engineers will have to have knowledge regarding Azure and hybrid integration. We use a third party for deployment.

We evaluated other options before choosing Azure Backup, such as Veeam Backup.

Maintenance does not necessarily require any additional review. We can calculate and plan where everything based on the scheduled downtime. If the codebase is extensive, requiring a hundred or more hours of work, it would be advisable to allocate a team of three to five engineers to handle the maintenance tasks efficiently.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

The product is a part of our cloud infrastructure strategy.

All of the core features are valuable to us.

The product satisfies the need for backups within Azure. However, it is not very flexible in the world of technology. I can’t use the solution to restore another native cloud solution. Azure must add this new feature.

I have been using the solution for five to six years.

We have had very little downtime. I rate the tool’s stability an eight out of ten.

The solution has decent scalability. I rate it an eight out of ten.

We reached out to the technical support team for some minor issues. Microsoft’s technical support is not the greatest. Our experience has been the same across all the services.

Neutral

We used Commvault. It is quite diverse in its capabilities and provides flexible options for backup across multi-cloud platforms.

The initial setup was straightforward. The product is deployed on the cloud.

We have enterprise-level pricing. I rate the pricing a five out of ten.

We can use the solution if we don't plan to work in a multi-cloud environment. It meets our requirements. Azure Backup might not be the right product for us if we want a higher disaster recovery capability. Overall, I rate the tool a seven out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a backup.

With on-premises servers, you can have a long-term archival sitting on public clouds, like Azure. That is also one of the very good use cases where you're avoiding all the tape requirements for your long-term archival. 

It's a native solution provided by Microsoft. It solves the needs we have. We are using it at most places, unless, and until there is some specific requirement where there's a database or something, which you're getting out of the box from Azure Backup. That's when we go for other third-party backup solutions. Otherwise, for the VM backups and all of that, it's a great product. It's one of the best solutions for backups.

It's easy to use. 

The storage cost is not too much. 

It gives you what you would like to have from a basic solution, like machine backup, or for your snapshots. Everything can be done from the platform itself. 

The management interface is very intuitive and familiar. It makes it a lot easier for anyone to manage it or to actually work on it.

The integration with the record database and integration with other applications will be good, especially with the database piece. MySQL and Oracle are very widely used databases and Azure Backup doesn't have tight integration with them. It only provides the backup of the disc and the virtual machine and associated data, however, it doesn't provide you an application of their backup for non-Microsoft products, especially. That is where SQL Server, which is a Microsoft database, provides a good integration for the initial backup in MySQL which is a widely used database solution. They should actually provide that or you can handle integration with those databases as well.

The most important thing is integration with third-party products. That could be one of the best features. Whenever we have to look for databases or specific applications, that's when things get complicated and where third parties, like Win Backup, Symantec, and other backup solutions come in. The most important thing they can do to improve is to cover at least industry standard databases first.

I've been using the solution for seven or eight years now. 

The backup stability is good.

Scalability is fine. For any mid-size org, it is a good solution. We have done it for close to 2,000 servers, so it is working fine.

In terms of tech support, I'm disappointed with support. It's not like earlier days. Earlier Microsoft tech support used to be one of the best. Now that's not the case. You have long queues and you have to wait a bit longer compared to earlier. What I can say is there are a lot of articles, and there are self-help resources. Those are available. That actually helps in troubleshooting. You do not always have to open a ticket unless and until there is something really critical. You just don't get a timely response.

Neutral

I have used AWS. Azure is a more mature product. AWS didn't used to have a backup solution. 

It's easy to deploy.

We have a deployment team. There is usually very few people dealing with the implementation. You might have eight to ten guys doing the migration and other things. Recently, we did a project where there were close to 1,000 servers that have to be moved to the public cloud and we implemented Azure Backup for all of them. It didn't take much of our time since the management and the interface are very easy and you don't have much to do over there. 

It's a slow process. You're not moving all of them at one shot. We'll do 15 to 20 servers in a batch, which we are doing based on the applications. One application, we are going to move at a given time. If there are 15 to 20 servers within one particular application, it takes hardly a few hours to go and do everything. However, if there are many, many applications, it will take time.

We handle the implementation for our clients. 

The ROI is good based on the cost itself. The upfront cost itself is less and it includes your licensing and hosting and everything. There are no other industry-standard backups like it. The licensing costs are very high and you need it in front of all of that. It is hosted on the cloud. Even if you go with something which is hosted on the cloud, the license cost is high. If you compare it with other costs of solutions, Microsoft has done a good job of providing a native backup solution with very affordable pricing. 

The cost for Azure backup is purely based on the size of the data and the virtual machine as well as the number of virtual machines. It's around $10 to $15 per month per virtual machine, along with something extra based on the size of the data. It covers 500 GBs or something like that. If you go beyond that for a virtual machine, you will have to pay extra.

We're Microsoft partners and we do have many customers who are using the Microsoft platform.

We are always using the latest version of the solution. 

It's on-cloud and in some servers on-premises, which we are taking from the backup cloud. It's mostly for the infrastructure sitting on the cloud.

The solution should be an eight out of ten.

Potential users should actually look for compatibility. With any service that you talk about in a public cloud, one should first understand the requirement and then they should do some sort of research or they should, if they're new to it, have a look into the compatibility and the articles. Those are provided by Microsoft in terms of basic requirements or constraints that they have. They have a lot of constraints around. You have to be very careful which geography it is. What is the cost and what kinds of constraints do they have in terms of compatibility with any operating system or application? Those are the four or five things that one should look at before considering it as a solution or implementation.

We generally use the solution for VM backups. 

With a couple of buttons, we can configure a VM for a backup and use the wall service, the storage wall service, pretty seamlessly. 

From a day-to-day operation perspective, the installation and configuration of the Azure Backup and the backup timing are great. It offers a non-intrusive backup - like a snapshot type of backup. This way, we don't see any impact when running the backup and the job runs without any problem unless the VM host itself is having some problems. 

From the stability aspect of it, the execution aspect, I don't see any issues.

I didn't see any kind of major flaws or anything. The only thing I would say that could be improved is the reporting. It can be a little more customized or something like that. Maybe they need a little bit more on the dashboard view. The reporting and governance can be a little more fine-tuned.

I've used the solution for 18 months or so.

The solution is stable. The performance is great There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We haven't really used technical support in the past. We went with them due to the fact that it's not a complicated use case for us, so we haven't really seen any issue. We haven't really dealt with Azure Backup-related troubleshooting or anything.

I work for a client who pays for the solution. My understanding is the costs vary year to year. I don't really have any visibility, however. 

If you're hosting a majority of your platform in Azure, this solution should be okay. Azure Backup is probably the easiest solution to with, rather than bringing another third party into the mix. As a consolidated solution, the Azure Backup will work well - if your native cloud platform is Azure.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.

We use Commvault for on premises clients and the Azure Backup for cloud-based clients.

This solution is easy to configure and restore. It is a Microsoft product so is easily compatible with other solutions.

The restoration of permissions is a functionality that could be improved. If I want to restore permissions, I should be able to do this. 

Secondly, there is a limitation of 99 files restores per day which means that we can't complete a huge file restore. We would like Azure to increase the number of the possible file restorations.

I have been using this solution for five years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution besides the limitations on file restorations.

It takes a long time to resolve support tickets with the Microsoft support team. They could offer faster resolution of tickets. I would rate them a two out of five. 

Neutral

We use Azure Backup alongside Commvault Hyperscale X. The latter offers a compression ratio that is much higher compared to Azure Backup. There are no limitations on file restorations using Commvault. 

Azure Backup is free and we are only charged for storage. Commvault is definitely costly compared to Azure Backup.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward, 

Azure offers competitive pricing and charges us only for the storage space that we use. 

We use this solution for across-the-board data protection. That includes VMs, and storage pools for basically any level of recoverability whether for files, storage pools or transactional data. I'm an enterprise architect. 

Backup helps quite a bit in terms of immediate recovery and immediate restoration. It's very helpful when it comes to data corruption, file damage, or inadvertent deletions. The other component is the relatively broad data protection we get across the entire Azure landing zone. It backs up efficiently and reports better than a lot of traditional tools. 

I think the extensibility onto hybrid environments needs a bit of tweaking. It's great in the cloud but when you're on-prem it requires quite a bit of infrastructure in terms of Azure ARC and bringing it back. 

I've been using this solution for around four years. 

The solution is quite stable and reliable. We've had a few little nominal outages, but nothing terrible. It's much more reliable than any of the traditional on-premise kind of private cloud environments. 

The solution is very scalable for us but scalability depends on your location.There are no problems accessing Azure in Europe or North America but if you're looking at the newer regions, they're slower in adding the same capability. I used Azure in Dublin because there was no Azure in Africa. When they turned on Azure in South Africa we had to switch to that but we only got 50% of the functionality. South Africa should have been brought to the same level before we had to make the move from Dublin. It's taken us backward. 

The initial setup is fairly standard and not too complex. Deployment generally takes a few days depending on the size. Anything to do with data retention takes more time as we have to define the backup schedules and retention and those kinds of things. Validating the backups is quick and efficient but determining which data we need to keep and for how long, takes time. Those are all issues related to the customer.

Deployment steps are basically about carrying out an inventory of the workloads. You want to guard the types of protection you're applying specifically to databases versus different systems and services, and then how that ties into full recoverability. That would take a week maximum in the worst case and we do that internally. 

We usually have two systems engineers involved in maintenance. Different projects require different capacities.

ROI is very good as long as you modernize your solutions and then it brings quite a saving. If you don't upgrade to cloud, and you just do a lift and shift, it'll kill you with the cost.

Licensing costs are consumption-based so the more storage we eat, the more data we protect, the greater the cost.

It's important to ensure that the capabilities you require are available in your region. Feature availability per region is the most important thing. You can't do a design for Azure in North America and then think that it's going to work everywhere. Azure is not consistent so you may be forced to buy third-party products that you didn't budget for.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We're using it as a native tool for VM-level backup.

When it comes to Azure Backup, the advantage is that it's native and it's very easy to configure. We don't require a separate tool or manage something on a separate server. At the backend, it's managed by Microsoft itself, and we don't need to manage it. 

In Avamar, the file-based restores are very quick and fast, whereas, in Azure Backup, VM restore is super easy, but if I have to do a file or a folder restore, I have to mount the entire VM image. I have to wait for some time for it to be mounted, and then I have to go inside and then check the file and copy it somewhere. It's a bit of a manual process, whereas in Avamar, you can directly select a file and folder, and it'll recover with whatever permissions you want. That's better in Avamar, and that's the only thing that's lacking in Azure. File or folder recovery is complex and time-consuming.

I've been working with Azure Backup for two years.

There is no separate tool, so there is no issue with stability. If the Avamar server goes down, all the backups will fail, whereas, in the case of Azure Backup, there is no separate tool. If there is any issue with a particular server, only that backup will fail, but there is no single point of failure in Azure Backup, which is not the case with Avamar because it has to rely on a server. I'd rate Azure Backup a ten out of ten in terms of stability.

I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of scalability because there is no limit. You can configure as many backups as you like. There is no limitation on storage space because it's not a separate tool. It goes to the Azure backend. They are managing it, so there is no storage limit. It's completely scalable.

The level-one support is not that good, but it's slightly better than Avamar. I'd rate them a five out of ten.

Neutral

We also use Avamar, but that can only take a file-level backup for the VMs in Azure. For a VM-level backup, we have to use a native Azure tool.

With Avamar, we have to manage the Avamar server, whereas we don't need to manage the Azure server. We just directly configure the backup of each server, and we don't have to worry about the maintenance of the tool because it's inherently native to the Azure portal. That's the biggest advantage.

I'd rate its setup a ten out of ten in terms of ease because you don't need to read anything to configure it. It's super easy like filling out a form.

The number of people required for its deployment depends on how many devices we need to configure. If we're migrating a big enterprise with hundreds or thousands of servers, we would require two or three people to manage it.

The deployment duration depends on the migration timelines. Generally, 300 or 400 can be configured in one day because it's centralized. There is a checkbox to select everything and put it once the other policy is created.

It comes with a total package of VMs and other things, so it's a bit difficult to distinguish between just the backup cost because it's an all-in-one cost. I don't manage the billing. There is a separate team that manages the billing. Overall, its cost is better because the VMs are already there, and whatever you back up, there is only the additional cost of that storage, whereas if I have to use Avamar in Azure, a separate cost is there for the Avamar server, and in addition, whatever I take as a backup, there is a separate license with Avamar for that. So, there is a double cost if we have to use Avamar in the cloud.

It's pretty easy. When you do the AZ-900 or AZ-104 course, you will understand most of it, whereas, in the case of Avamar, there is no training shared for free.

Overall, I'd rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten.