Azure Site Recovery Reviews

Our data was on VMware VM, and we used Azure Site Recovery to replicate all data into Azure.

What I like best about Azure Site Recovery is that it's easier to use because my organization already uses Azure as an Active Directory solution, which means the organization already has a tenant. It was easier to go for Azure Site Recovery, though the solution's features can also be found in other solutions in the market.

I also found the load-balancing feature of Azure Site Recovery valuable. The solution fulfills the needs of my organization.

It was easier to configure the server in the older version of Azure Site Recovery. Still, in the newest version, the configuration was a little more complex, so this is an area for improvement in the solution.

Azure Site Recovery is a stable solution.

Azure Site Recovery is highly scalable, and even when my team did some failover testing, it was scalable.

Our Microsoft partner also provides technical support for Azure Site Recovery, and our experience with them is excellent. We were partners with them when we were using AD, and now they're also giving us technical support, so we just extended our support.

The initial setup for Azure Site Recovery wasn't that complex, though its configuration was confusing. There wasn't much documentation available on configuring Azure Site Recovery as it had just launched, so that was a bit tricky. Still, my organization was able to set it up.

My organization has a Microsoft partner who helped implement Azure Site Recovery.

I'm not sure about the Azure Site Recovery pricing, but my organization gets monthly bills from providers.

I've used Azure Site Recovery.

My organization has three Azure Site Recovery users. The service provider handles the maintenance of the solution. I own the apps, so I'm in charge of the apps, ensuring that the apps always run. Another team member works with the service provider on the security side. My organization also has an infrastructure engineer working with the service provider.

As Azure Site Recovery fulfills my organization's needs and is pretty straightforward and understandable, I rate it as eight out of ten.

I'm a customer of Microsoft.

Customers are interested in utilizing a BI engine for data recovery. While they initially provided their entire recovery, there have been instances where they considered switching to another solution. For certain customers, they opt not to cover the entire hardware or use Cisco cybersecurity, which might not be the case.

I conveyed the feedback to the agent, suggesting an increase in the agent count in our VNS in the USA. I also addressed notification concerns, as some issues didn't trigger alerts during a recent call.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery for three years. 

I would rate the stability 8 out of 10. 

It is very scalable. 

Before considering the use of Savavi services, there's an upfront payment requirement for numerous hours. In contrast, with Azure, the costs are more flexible, allowing payment based on actual usage rather than a fixed amount. This approach avoids the need to commit significant funds upfront, making it more cost-effective, especially in cases where the service might not be consistently utilized, ensuring a better return on investment.

It is easy. 

They have a license to pay. 

Overall, I would rate it 8 out of 10. 

I primarily use Site Recovery to back up our site server.

Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration.

Site Recovery could improve its communication of when new features are available.

I've been using Site Recovery for a year.

I would rate Site Recovery's stability eight out of ten - we've had some issues but only infrequently.

Site Recovery's scalability could be improved.

Microsoft has the best technical support available.

Previously, I used Veaam Backup.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Site Recovery has given us a good return on our investment.

I would recommend Site Recovery for single and larger companies. I would give Site Recovery a rating of eight out of ten.

We use the solution primarily for migrations, backup and BCP.

All the features are great.

The immutable backup could be better and should be improved.

We have been using this solution for about four years. It is deployed differently depending on the customer.

It is a stable product.

It is scalable. Our customers are small and midsize businesses.

The technical support is good.

The initial setup was straightforward and took about 4 hours to complete.

The pricing should be free, and I think it should not be that expensive.

I rate this solution a nine out of ten. The documentation is good, and it can be integrated with other products.

We use this solution mainly for compliance and to a DR and a commitment in RTO and RPO.

The most valuable feature is the visibility of what is happening with our business as well as the good reporting and dashboards. 

The pricing predictability and clarity around the final cost of the plan of this solution could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for two years. 

This is a stable solution. 

The initial setup is straightforward. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We back up our site to it and use it for a VR. We are using the most up to date version of this solution.

The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. 

It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up.

It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning.

I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It always works.

It is scalable. Currently, we have only one user who uses it.

I don't work with tech support, but they can have a quicker turnaround on the tech support.

It was pretty straightforward. It was just installing the clients and setting up your site recovery. You can also use the documentation. 

Our network or systems engineer maintains it.

It should have more straightforward billing. The billing was what got funky. It was really cheap. We would pay based on the usage. We paid around $225 a month for site-to-site replication.

The best advice that I could give is to just research what Azure Site Recovery is for. It is not a backup solution. So, even though you have enabled Site Recovery, you still need backups.

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a nine out of ten.

We haven't really found any of the features to be valuable. It's around five years behind other market leaders. We prefer to use VMware products for site recovery software.

We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor.

I have been using Site Recovery since 2015. 

It is a very stable product and very scalable. If you've got existing technology it is very very difficult to move across.

I would rate their technical support as six out of ten.

We use VMware Site Recovery Manager. 

The initial setup is fairly easy. It's feature-diluted. It's quite easy to set up. You do need support from Microsoft though if you're going to get the most out of it. Their support isn't so good. We prefer to use our partners. We've gotten little support and little help from them. They're not as knowledgeable as our own partners. 

We've invested nearly 20 million pounds in Azure and it's been an absolute disaster for us.

We've got three full-time administrators, which is quite high. That supports 10,000 people but we are 95% of our services actually in VMware.

In the next release, I would like to see better block-level recovery. It is key. Bare metal recovery and block-level recovery. 

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a four out of ten. If you start from scratch, it's fine. 

Primary use case really depends on the client. The product can be used by insurance companies, hospitals, healthcare professionals. We mainly use the product for backup and disaster recovery and it's suitable for small and medium enterprise companies. 
It's used occasionally, not on a daily basis. We are in partnership with Microsoft and I work as a senior sales solution architect. 

One of the valuable features is failure restores. 

Improvement could be made on the pricing model. It could be brought in line with the competitive ranges in the market 

Additional features could include more of a backup and recovery. We'd like to see the AIX operating system added into it. It's more virtual right now.

I've been using the product for the last two or three years. 

Stability really depends on the situation, sometimes it's better and other times it's worse. It's generally fine. 

Scalability is good in this solution. 

The initial setup depends on the kind of control infrastructure that the clients have and that determines whether the setup is simple or complex. Azure doesn't have its own hardware for on-prem which makes it more complex for the reseller or as a solution for companies like us,  because we have to go and talk to different vendors for hardware. It means you then have to go and  buy the licenses or OS for everything and it becomes complex for someone who is selling it to the customer because there are several elements that need to be taken into consideration. We provide installation services and that can take a week or two. 

There are different components in pricing and for each and every component you have to check the box and you have to look for options - check if they have a front end or back end kind of licensing, those are different types of licensing that can possibly be made simpler and probably cheaper. 

We looked at Dell EMC but I think we went with Site Recovery because it fits better with cloud and they're moving a lot of their workload to cloud like Azure, and want something that is seamlessly integrated. It also provides one vendor whereas with Dell you then need to go to Azure and if a problem isn't resolved then who is responsible. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10.