AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery vs Carbonite Server comparison

"We have never had any issues with scalability."

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

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

"AWS Elastic Disaster Recovery is a robust and reliable solution for disaster recovery needs."

"​The initial setup is really straightforward."

"What I like about ECR AWS is that it is a fully managed service, so I don't need to manage the underlying infrastructure or worry about scalability in AWS concerning building, maintenance, security, and high availability."

"It offers seamless integration with services like ACL, EKS, and Fargate for deploying containerized applications."

"The setup is pretty straightforward."

"I find the BMR/image and the recovery pieces are valuable."

"Easy verification of things is the most valuable feature."

"It does not slow down your computer or use a lot of resources as it works."

"The efficiency and convenience are excellent."

"The solution is a free engine to help work with the container."

"It seems reliable and easy to use."

"Technical support handled all our issues quickly and effectively."

"The Granular Restore of SQL feature has been a lifesaver more times than I can count. One of the main reasons for looking at Carbonite was their support for platforms like AIX and AS/400 Series."

"Sometimes a server will get a bit behind. ​"

"Since I have to view everything on the console, the previous application solutions like IBM and Sanavi showed the RPO and RTO status directly. In AWS Disaster Recovery Service, these details are not available, making it difficult to check my replication status."

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

"The user interface, customer support, and the recovery time for the current customer query could use improvement."

"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."

"In its current state, ECL integrates with CloudWatch for basic logging and monitoring, yet improvements could include more detailed logs for specific actions, like when I perform actions such as push or pull."

"An improved AWS pricing model is needed."

"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."

"The only thing that I would like to see improved is related to marketing. Currently, it is very difficult to find the right paper and stuff for me. Their marketing department should provide better information because currently, it is very difficult to find information on the internet. It was bought over by OpenText, and you won't be able to find a lot of information about this solution on their site. They should also provide training facilities for commercial purposes. Some of my colleagues recently went for pilot training, and they were technical. If I want to get trained, the training has to be more commercial. Currently, there is no such training for users like me."

"It could be a little bit easier or faster to be able to access data files without having to download anything."

"In the next release I would like to see an improvement in the auto failover option."

"The support for object storage isn't quite there yet. Its public cloud support can be improved. I would love to see the public cloud support for object storage, and it would be great, but what I always hear from the folks at Carbonite is that in a lot of cases, it directly competes with their cloud offering. So, I don't know when or where that will go or if that will go anywhere, but we are hopeful to see something. The dashboard is a little outdated. If they gave it a facelift and put some better design around their dashboard, that would be tremendous. I generally care less about the visual aesthetics of an application as long as it does what it needed to do, which is true in the case of this solution. We also have the Microsoft 365 platform. Because they're two separate platforms, I have to log in to my Microsoft platform to manage it, and I have to log into my Carbonite server backup platform to manage it. Having these two coexist together in one management console is really what we're looking for, but we went for it knowing this. We also knew that there would be some integration coming down the road. So, we're again hoping to see some of that coming in 2021."

"The stability has room for improvement."

"They do not yet have USB recovery but they are adding it in coming releases."

"The Hyper-V backup has room for improvement."

"We were happy with the pricing that they gave us."

"They license us on a per machine basis. We have a set number of machines, which we have licensed.​"

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

"On a scale from one to ten, where one is cheap and ten is expensive, I rate the solution's pricing an eight out of ten."

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

"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."

"It has saved us money from having to buy hardware for disaster recovery."

"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."

"Its price is reasonable."

"The pricing is between $120 and $150 per year."

"The solution is open source."

"We pay 9,000 dollars per year for our license."