There is only one thing to note: the agent has to be up-to-date when SCCM or any third-party tools are doing patching activities. If their agent version is mismatched and the health status is critical, you will not be able to perform your Azure Site Recovery. Recently, I worked with a mass issue related to Recovery Services Vault, and the VM support engineers are taking a lot of time to extend support to the customer. When you raise a call, they wait too long, and even if you request an engineer to set up a call for severity B cases, they are not ready to communicate over the phone, preferring email instead.

View full review »

There is room for improvement in the release of patches, such as ensuring they are properly managed to avoid outages. The support help desk needs to improve escalation procedures. Azure outsources their help desk globally, but while they are cooperative, there are still loopholes in resolving issues, especially after untested patches cause client outages. View full review »

To be honest, I didn't use it directly. As far as I know, there weren't any significant problems with Azure Site Recovery. Although pricing for data solutions can always be cheaper, site recovery wasn't a major expense in our overall costs. View full review »

Currently, Azure Site Recovery does not support shared disk options. Moreover, it does not support services like AppConfig or App Services. Integrating these services would make the solution more accessible for any company.

View full review »

The flexibility of Azure Site Recovery regarding integration with different IT environments is limited; it is purely an Azure platform service for business continuity, not meant for integration with other services.

The point-in-time recovery feature is not useful as it is not within the scope of point-in-time recovery. We have RTO goals and RPO goals that we track live, which provide feedback on what the RTO and RPO are in case of failover.

Azure can improve Azure Site Recovery potentially because the internals are not clearly available; we take Azure support for some of these things, which is not adequately provided.

Functionality-wise, I am satisfied with the current services of Azure Site Recovery; the only thing I would mention is that the user experience can be improved.

View full review »

It can incorporate features related to monitoring the site to streamline the process. Personally, I often use automation for efficiency. This reduces dependency on support for those solutions, especially in scenarios involving disaster recovery. 

Currently, we lack a straightforward method to automate the restart of services, which can be quite time-consuming. Having more APIs would certainly enhance the security and manageability of these solutions.

View full review »

The product's performance is an area of concern where improvements are required. From an improvement perspective, the solution should provide ease of use to its users and try to be a complete solution to be able to act as a CDP replacement.

View full review »

The solution needs to improve replication and failover processes. We are still looking for improvements in the cost baseline. 

View full review »

The primary area for improvement in Azure Site Recovery is its pricing. While the service is efficient and successful in handling recovery scenarios, especially for large companies dealing with substantial monthly data, the costs can be a significant consideration. The ease and speed of ASR in recovery are commendable, but addressing the pricing aspect would enhance overall satisfaction.

View full review »

One area for improvement with Azure is helping customers predict usage more accurately. It would be great to have tools that provide clearer insights into how our costs might evolve over time. Like a budget forecast that considers potential fluctuations based on usage, helping avoid surprises.

View full review »

It would be good if we could replicate the solution to multiple locations simultaneously because we are currently allowed to replicate to just a single location.

View full review »

There is room for improvement in support because it can be very slow and unprofessional.

Another improvement can be there in terms of scalability. For example, it requires more time to sync with additional servers.

View full review »

Azure Site Recovery's deployment is complex. There are a lot of bugs, and it needs to improve stability. 

View full review »

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.

View full review »

The tool should improve synchronization. 

View full review »

I would like to see more security features. 

View full review »

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.

View full review »

I'd like to see more integration with other platforms.  

View full review »

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.

View full review »

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

View full review »

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

View full review »

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.

View full review »

There have been issues with replication. 

It would be helpful if error logging was handled more effectively.

When it runs, it runs well but when it doesn't run, the solution needs to make it clearer as to why and what the troubleshooting process is. All this would be possible if the error logging was streamlined a bit.

View full review »

The immutable backup could be better and should be improved.

View full review »

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

View full review »