We're working with them on our file share backups. Our solution needs a little bit more fine-tuning. We're not sure if the issue is at our end or at Barracuda's end.

I think we can leverage more on backing up or collecting some data for all of the features that Office 365 gives us. Currently, they are doing the backup of Teams. They could also add the backup for the planner. For the Barracuda Backup system, they could at least have a chance to provide the backup for laptops and computers to the cloud. I would like to see a way to increase space. That is one of two questions that we get from customers, "And what happened if I need to increase space?" I would rate Barracuda Backup at a nine on a scale of ten.

The restore time can be improved. The restore time for large quantities of folders is slow. Sometimes, if I'm doing a full recovery of a server, it takes multiple hours, which probably is natural. It might also be because of our internet speed to the cloud.

Barracuda Backup would benefit greatly from adding Changed Block Tracking Support for Hyper-V. There are certain challenges with the size of the data being backed up as well with some restore processes (namely, Bare-Metal Restore) that would be greatly affected by the implementation of support o CBT for Hyper V Environments.

The backup solution is fully integrated into Barracuda Cloud Control, I believe that adding orchestration capabilities to Restore/Disaster Recovery would take the product to a new level.

The solution is pretty expensive but depending on your requirement, it could be worth it. This is the usual customer complaint.

Their technical support is not very good. You never know what they are doing and what is the issue. Customers need to know what is happening. This is our main concern and the only thing that can be improved in this solution. I would like to have more visibility about what is going on when something happens. I need to know what was done to solve the issue.

The tool is not user-friendly. The solution should also improve its compatibility. It is also not license-based. 

We are moving away from using this solution to using Veeam Backup on AWS. This is a company wide decision to move all efforts to a different solution to increase our buying power. This solution could be improved with offering lower prices at scale. 

It would be a big improvement if the Live Boot feature could work without the need for a secondary, standby server.

I would like to see the Live Boot feature extended to Hyper-V machines, in addition to VMware machines.

Most of the Management must be done using the Cloud Control. Logging directly on the box does provide some management, but not as much as we want. It is a concern if ether we run in a disaster situation where we have no connectivity to the internet / cloud control.

Our second issue was backing up Solaris / Sun systems. There was no support to backup such systems and solutions and we had to go for another solution for Sun /Solaris platforms. 

Compatibility with all major OS / Platforms is very important as most government organisation in our region uses solutions that runs on Solaris platforms. 

Its speed can be a bit improved, and of course, its pricing can go a lot cheaper.

It would be nice to have some reports generated on the usage of the system such as detailed backup statistics, but it is not essential.

The backup feature could be a bit simpler to utilize. They should make the process of backing up individual files simpler.

The pricing could be a bit better.

The solution should have the ability to back up other devices, such as mobile phones or tablets.

I would like to have a mix of backup between on-premises and the cloud.

I would like to see the automatic backup of critical applications to the cloud.

I am working in some of the more rural areas of Sweden, and some of the customers here are a little bit wary of cloud technology at the moment. It is not like in Gothenburg or Stockholm, where people rely on it so much more. In the rural areas, companies are saying that we do need to use the cloud, and they are being very wary about their data, especially with GDPR and all that kind of stuff. Having more control and having an option for backing up locally, even if you don't want to use it, would be something very good.

The cloud backup is brilliant, but there should be an option to take that cloud backup and save it locally as well. If you lose connection to the internet or you lose access to your data in the cloud, having a backup copy of the latest data on your server is helpful. You need to be able to get access to your customers' files, especially with GDPR, where you need to know where your customers' details are. If they're in the cloud and you've lost access to them, then you'll go into those GDPR regulations. This is somewhere where both Barracuda and Veeam haven't gone as far. As far as I have understood, with Veeam, you can back up your local servers to the cloud but not vice versa. I haven't worked on it much.

One part of the product that I think needs the most improvement is the recovery feature. It is not as fast as it should be.

https://www.itcentralstation.com/product_reviews/barracuda-backup-review-65726-by-mohmmed-merajuddin/edit#There are features in other solutions that this product does not have or support. For example, with some other products you can enlarge the disk core, you can have a multithreaded disk to maximize processing, there is SIT (System Integrated Testing) support, and CIFS (Common Internet File System) support. In my case, I think it would be a better product if I could have CIFS support for sharing folder. It should already be there.

The product as it is can make backups related to server and manages data versioning and unwanted files. But with CIFS support, it could share on EMC (Enhanced Memory Controller) or any other storage. This is an option, but an advantage in some cases.

Disk management can be improved by giving us the opportunity to increase or enlarge the disk during the recovery. Adding that and CIFS support will improve the utility and speed of the product.

Speed of backups. Compared to Avamar and Data Domain (our other systems), the backup speed is slow.

We look forward to their upcoming release of a hybrid on the cloud. Apart from that, there is nothing needed.

Another thing is that some customers want to backup individual users. They do not want device based, not machine based, not IP, but a backup of personal folders on a Windows machine. Barracuda doesn't have this functionality. It does backup over machines and shared folders, but not user profiles. Backing up user profiles might be an extra feature that will be useful.

Maybe technicians who work the field might have more suggestions.

The web interface needs to contain a more up-to-date view of the hardware. It is slow in showing real time data. Barracuda says they are working on a completely new web interface to fix this.

Barracuda Backup could use some more integration. 

The price of this solution could be improved.

In the next release of this solution, I would like to see cloud support and deduplication functionality. These features are not there and they should be.

Scalability-wise, there is room for improvement.

I would like to see better integration with third-party applications.

I find that there always seems to be some reason to cause the backup to fail. We really need it to achieve a consistency in terms of successful backups.