HPE Zerto Software Reviews

We have previously used Zerto for data center migration projects. We have another data center migration coming up within the next year where we will be using Zerto as well.

We had pretty strict requirements when it came to cross data center migration capabilities. We wanted to ensure that no plugins or drivers were needed. We also wanted a simple deployment. Zerto very easily fit that bill.

The most valuable feature is Zerto's ability to synchronize data to the remote destination prior to the actual live migration date. This saves a massive amount of time during the actual migrations, and has been extremely beneficial. Having the data already synchronized on the evening of the migrations makes the final moves fast, easy, and seamless.

The interface is very easy to use. The product is easy to understand. We have had great success in using it for migrations. The benefit for us has primarily been the ease of use and stability of the product.

The VPG model has caused a bit of a concern. We are considering using Zerto to replace Site Recovery Manager. SRM is very easy when we have entire data stores being replicated. We don't have to make any decisions when it comes to groupings of VMs. If we move to Zerto, which we are considering, we will have to work closely with our applications teams to create VPGs and determine how the VMs will be grouped. This will probably be beneficial in the long term, but short term it will create more work for our team.

I spoke to a Zerto engineer who mentioned that we could do a VPG at the cluster level and a VPG at the datastore level. However, the one issue we've seen with VPGs is if the synchronization fails the entire VPG has to be recreated. Even though we can cover our environment at the cluster level or datastore level, that wouldn't be ideal. We really need a simpler solution for DR that will cover all of our VMs at once, instead of spending a considerable amount of time on VPG creation. 

We have been using Zerto for about three years.

The stability is very good. All of the components that we set up for Zerto have been very stable. 

Scalability has met our needs.

Support has been excellent. We had a couple of issues initially with a VPG that wasn't functioning properly. Support was very quick to respond. They were able to assist us and resolve the issue very quickly. We have only had to call support one time.

We also use Site Recovery Manager. SRM does not have the same feature set for migrations that Zerto has.

The product was easy to deploy. At the time, the only thing that we wanted to improve was to have an appliance for the ZVM, instead of a Windows server. I understand an appliance is available now. This will be very beneficial in the future.

The deployment was straightforward. We basically went through the documentation and then had a planning meeting with Zerto. Once we understood all of the requirements we were able to deploy very quickly with really no issues at all. We deployed Zerto in less than a week.

We implemented the product ourselves. Zerto's expertise has always been very good.

Our migrations were all successful. We had no issues at any point during the project. That is what really sold us on Zerto.

The licensing costs are not cheap. It is an expensive product. However, you do get what you pay for.

There was really no other product that compared to Zerto. Zerto had exactly what we were looking for in a data center migration product. It had the ease of use and interface that we were looking for, that is, very simple and straightforward.

Zerto's ability to copy the data first, then synchronize just prior to the migrations made it much faster and easier for us to use than other solutions.

Understand the VPG configuration. Understand that you will need to make some decisions as to how to cover your VMs. We eventually went with one VPG per VM for our migrations. This is because we discovered if the VPG has a problem, then you need start over and recreate the VPG. If you choose to cover 50 VMs on a VPG, and if that VPG fails for some reason, then you need to restart the whole process. So you need to consider your VPG design and how you are grouping your VMs.

We haven't used it yet for disaster recovery, but that is something that we will be looking at over the next year.

We have had great success with the product. It is one of the very few products that we have recently used that literally had no issues and worked exactly as designed. At every single point in our migration, it was successful. We had multiple migration waves that occurred over a period of a year and a half. We literally had no failures during that entire time, which is of rare in the industry and made us very happy. Now that we have another data center migration project coming up, we decided we were just going to go straight back to Zerto.

We primarily use it for DR, that is, for VM replication between two data centers, using it not only for replication but also for orchestration.

Zerto provided better overall DR coverage and more consistency.

I found VM level replication and being able to group the VM levels to be valuable. I like not having to worry about whether a particular VM is in the right storage group; some of those sorts of things would trip us up previously. 

It's a lot easier and more straightforward for a VM administrator because he can know that this VM goes in this group or gets this tag, for example, and that it's now in a DR group and is taken care of. I don't have to worry about all the backend details. It's just simplified.

In terms of ease of use, the benefit of Zerto over SRM is the fact that it doesn't rely on a secondary backend product, with having to have the right storage groups with RecoverPoint or something else with multi-tier architecture.

It's still too early to compare the speed of recovery with Zerto versus the speed of recovery with other disaster recovery solutions. We've just started the DR tests to understand the time difference. However, from what I've seen so far, the speed of recovery is similar but more consistent with Zerto. We don't have situations where we've missed this or that.

Zerto reduced the staff involved in data recovery situations by a single person. Now, we don't have the backend storage person who has to keep an eye on it anymore. With a different solution, we would have needed two people.

There's one feature that SRM had that Zerto doesn't have, and it's one that we've been asking for. With the orchestration part of the failover, with our DR and our primary sites, the IP addresses are almost identical. The only difference is one octet. With SRM, we could say during a failover change. With Zerto, we keep hearing that it's coming, but we haven't received it yet. It's a feature that would be very beneficial. It would reduce the time a little bit more.

I've been working with Zerto for about two years.

The stability seems fine. I haven't seen any issues with it thus far.

For our organization, the scalability matched our needs. Between the data centers, we probably have somewhere in the neighborhood of 3,000 VMs.

From what I have seen, the technical support has been very good. They've been very responsive to my team.

We previously used SRM. Zerto is a little bit more mature, has a better feature set, and is more aligned with the features and functionalities that we need.

We have seen an ROI from the perspective of a reduction in hardware and a reduction in the number of people trying to focus on the tool sets.

It is less expensive than the full solution that we had previously, but at the same time, it's not an inexpensive product either.

We evaluated Cohesity and other solutions.

Overall, Zerto is a very good product for us, and I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We purchased Zerto for our business continuity and DR approach to make sure that workloads are available. We have 1,000 servers but are only protecting 250 of them because they are our core servers. The ones we don't currently protect are Tier three applications.

We have had many instances where VMs were corrupted by an application owner, where they were installing something and did not create a snapshot in VMware for it. Instead of tapping into our backups, with just two clicks, we were able to restore the VM back to its original state. It helps a lot in the day-to-day running of our business.

In some instances, there is data within transactions that I need to recover that might be lost. When using Zerto, I might be losing five seconds worth of data instead of losing ten minutes. That helps a lot. Zerto also helped us reduce downtime and we have been able to recover VMs fairly quickly by just clicking two buttons. Within a minute I would have a VM up and running and ready to go with no issues at all.

The RTO and RPO are the most valuable features. I get six-second snapshots for every single time that data gets replicated. I can go back six seconds past whatever happened. The frequency of the snapshots depends on your latency. It could be as frequent as every two seconds.

The overall management plan could improve. If something happens with the VM on the vSphere side, the error codes are pretty weak. If there was a way to click on something within the UI that takes us to a support page or article, that would be very beneficial.

We have been using Zerto for six years. 

This is a stable solution. Most of the time, the issues that we have had with our ZVM going down are caused by us. 

This is a scalable solution. We deployed it in eight different locations. 

The support could be better. Overall they do have the answers for me when I need them but it takes them some time. The Level 1 support team that I contact first when I call in could be more knowledgeable about products and be able to resolve an issue instead of having to wait for a Level 2 or Level 3 person to assist.

I rate their support an eight out of ten. 

Positive

I've seen and looked into the VMware SRM. We also use another company, Cohesity, for our backups. They also have a solution for replication. When comparing these solutions, the RTO and RPO times are fairly reduced when using Zerto to get to a point where we need to be functional right away in an event of disaster recovery.

We have experienced ROI using this solution. It helps a lot when we use Zerto to test out certain applications. It offers a lot of value for our upper management to see how this product helps us in the event of a DR.

The pricing for this solution could be cheaper. They have two licensing tiers. When we purchased it, they didn't have a license for the cloud model. Certain things that I used to get with the basic licensing are no longer available. They are only available in the Cloud. Overall, the licensing model could be simplified. 

I would advise others to test drive the solution themselves. They should play with it, see how it works themselves and try to break it. 

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

In the past, we were predominantly using Citrix Hypervisor in the Hyper-V shop. Now that we've moved to VMware, we utilize Zerto to move those VMs from Hyper-V and Citrix Hypervisor over to VMware.

We're also looking at utilizing it for our DR site to be able to push up those VMs to the remote site in the case of a DR situation.

Zerto improved our organization by giving us flexibility back with migrating VMs, and I look forward to the future when we utilize it more for DR situations.

The feature I've found most valuable so far has been the ability to migrate the VMs from Hyper-V and Citrix Hypervisor. It's made our migration seamless. In the beginning, we were looking at freeware tools, and it was just a massive headache. Zerto solved a lot of the roadblocks that we'd run into in the past.

We've been able to set up a set schedule of moving certain VMs on certain dates, and we've been pretty confident that it's going to go smoothly without interruptions.

When you compare the ease of use of Zerto with those of other solutions, Zerto is much easier to use. It's idiot-proof. You don't have to be super technical to be able to be successful with the product. This is nice because you can delegate some of the tasks to the service desk. For example, you could have them handle the migrations, which would free up your engineering team to be able to spend time on more important projects.

Zerto helped reduce downtime every week. We have VMs that run in Hyper-V every week, and at night, we shut them down and migrate them over to VMware. The whole process takes under an hour, so these VMs are only offline for maybe an hour at the absolute most, which has been really helpful.

I believe 15 minutes of downtime is equivalent to a million in cost. So, it would probably cost our organization four to five million per hour of downtime.

I had to have my colleague contact technical support because we had an issue where VMs in VMware were getting blocked, and we weren't able to delete them.

The company as a whole has been using it for about six months now, and I've been using it for three months since I joined the company.

I've been pretty impressed with Zerto's stability. I haven't had any weird issues with the UI or with the migration aspect of it. It's been pretty rock solid.

Since I started, we've more than doubled our server capacity, and Zerto has been able to keep up just fine. So, it's definitely scalable, and we're looking to increase capacity by another 25% or 50%. I'm pretty confident that Zerto will be able to keep up with it.

I had to have my colleague contact technical support because we had an issue where VMs in VMware were getting blocked, and we weren't able to delete them. The whole issue was resolved in less than three days, which means that the technical support is probably pretty good to be able to get the issue sorted out so quickly.

I've tried to use Veeam for migration, and it's not really built for that. There was also a freeware solution. It worked okay, but we tended to run into some weird issues, specifically with EFI and regular BIOS VMs; these VMs weren't really translating properly to VMware.

I've been told that when they originally got the quote, it was a little bit of a sticker shock. However, now that we've actually been using it for six months, I've been told that the investment was well worth it.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Zerto a ten.

We primarily use Zerto for disaster recovery and backups.

When we use our VMware environment, sometimes the HP hardware is not compatible, and we start to lose data. I like that we can restore our whole application and public-facing system through Zerto.

It's the easiest way to do disaster recovery. It's less complicated than VMware.

Compared to the ease of use of other DR or backup solutions, Zerto's dashboard is the easiest. The user interface is much simpler, and maybe, that's what makes it easier.

Zerto helped reduce downtime when our data is corrupted. We're able to restore it relatively fast. There may be downtime of about half an hour for us, but the users don't see it; it's transparent.

The speed of recovery with Zerto versus the speed of recovery with other DR solutions is about the same.

Zerto reduced the number of staff involved in DR situations. We went from ten people to two for the whole organization.

It also reduced our organization's DR testing by about 30%. We've actually been able to move a lot of our resources (people) to AWS Innovation.

Zerto can improve the dashboard by making it even more simple. Right now, there's a lot on the dashboard, and it can be overwhelming. If you're an experienced user, then you'll find it easy to use, but if you're a beginner, it will take you some time.

We've been using it for seven years now.

Zertos' stability is very good.

It's very easy to scale, but the only problem is that there are additional costs associated with it. 

Zerto's technical support is excellent. When you open a ticket, they get back to you right away. If you mark it as a priority, then you have instantaneous access to support. I would give technical support a nine out of ten.

Positive

We have VMware products and tried to implement VMware Site Recovery Manager. However, it was just a little too difficult for our environment.

At first, the initial deployment was complex, but now it's relatively easy. For someone experienced, it is not a problem.

We have five data centers, and we started with one and deployed it in phases. Because there are lots of firewalls and access, we picked one data center and then built the next one.

We implemented it ourselves, and it took about a year to deploy it across the whole system.

For a long time, we needed disaster recovery that was more than IBM's, which is in Colorado. We needed something on-premises that was instantaneous. That's what Zerto offers, and that's the ROI we have with Zerto.

The last time I looked at pricing, it was very good. It's much cheaper than VMware by far.

We looked at VMware Site Recovery Manager and IBM, but they didn't work well.

The best way to look at it is from an ease-of-use standpoint because when you look at VMware's version, it's a little bit more complex even though it is native to where we use it. That's why we went with Zerto.

Considering what we use Zerto for, I'd give it a ten out of ten because it is our primary solution.

It is mainly for disaster recovery of our public-facing website.

I oversee the infrastructure team. I'm the lead for the infrastructure. It is not one of the technologies that I've primarily managed. As an infrastructure lead, I have my hands on every project, and it is hard for me to just focus on one. Especially because it is more of a disaster-recovery type solution for us, as long as replication is going fine and there are no issues, we don't really go in and play with it much.

It does what it claims to do. I can't say whether it improves anything. It is just the fact that we want to make sure our public-facing website is up 24/7, and Zerto gives us the capability of doing that.

It hasn't reduced downtime because we haven't experienced any downtime yet. We've done annual testing to make sure that it is working properly. So far, so good.

The replication is valuable. We have two data centers, and it is replicating from our main data center to another data center. In the event that there is an issue with the first one, it just goes over, and we have the website up and running. It does an automatic build. It keeps our website up and running without interruption. It is constantly replicating. It has the most up-to-date information, at least until the main one goes down, and then it automatically brings up the other one. It is already pre-configured with the network and everything else. So, the website is up and running in seconds.

The recovery was pretty seamless. It took about a minute for it to kick over when we did our testing. So, it wasn't a long downtime.

Zerto is more of a set-and-forget-it type of solution. As long as the replication is continuous and there are no issues, I don't touch Zerto. We don't have a lot of workload that needs to be up. We just have our web server and our applications here. Those are two main servers that we get up and running in a disaster-recovery type situation. I can't give any area of improvement from a real-world experience because we haven't had that issue, but from testing, Zerto has been working great. 

It is not something that goes beyond what our use case is for. When it comes to a solution, one of the things the management wants is to standardize platforms. That's why when Rubrik came out with their solution, they wanted to look at it. For instance, if you have multiple technologies, you're going to need admins to manage all those different ones. I would like Zerto to be something that fits all our needs, including the backup that Rubrik provides, but I understand that not all solutions can be that way. When I started working here, my predecessor who was managing Zerto had no documentation. So, I had to take over. No one else knew how to manage Zerto. So, there is just that type of learning process. That's why management wants to standardize on one solution so that it is easier to cross-train, but that's not Zerto's part. It just happens to be our environment and our management style. Zerto as a solution has been great for us.

I've been using it for about three years.

It has been stable for us. We had networking issues that caused the replication to break, but once we had that resolved, replication was seamless again. The
networking issues were on our side.

I don't have much input for its scalability because we only have a maximum of three servers that we need Zerto to bring up and get running as soon as possible, in the event that the main data center goes down.

It has been great. I've only requested support twice. The support engineer that worked with me has been great. I believe it was for the upgrade process, and he reached out to me and informed me that there was a new version that fixed a lot of the bugs from the previous version. He worked with me to get both data centers up to the latest version. I would rate them a 10 out of 10.

Positive

I haven't used any other one. Rubrik just happens to be coming out with a similar solution, and because we use Rubrik, management wants us to take a look at it and do a comparison between the two.

Aside from working with the network team to get all the networking pieces configured, it was pretty straightforward. Installing the agents on the servers and doing the initial replication took the longest time because we have close to a terabyte of data that has to be replicated from one data center to another, but other than that, it was pretty seamless.

It gives us peace of mind. It hasn't happened yet, but it does happen. Based on our annual testing, we are pretty much happy with what Zerto has done or can do.

Zerto is pretty reasonable. I haven't checked to see how much Rubrik is going to quote us for their solution. At least for us, the price doesn't play a big factor in the decision-making because it is a pretty small deployment for our use case.

We're currently evaluating Rubrik because we use that as our primary backup solution, and they just came out with a technology that's similar to Zerto. My managers, the executives, and I are in discussion on possibly looking at their solution and comparing it to Zerto to see which is the right fit for us.

In terms of ease of use, I haven't played with the Rubrik one yet just because they just announced it, but Zerto is pretty straightforward. I went in, and I did all the configuration myself within about 30, 40 minutes.

It is a great solution for what it does, but every company and every department has its own use cases. It is just a matter of evaluating different solutions that are available and picking the right one for your environment. For us, Zerto happens to be the right one.

I would rate it a 9 out of 10 just because it fits our needs for the solution and the environment we're in.

Its primary use case is for disaster recovery of 10 servers that we have in-house.

The testing of failover and failback is critical to any company, especially if they're certified in some platform like we are with ISO 27001. It is a necessity, and one of the main reasons I purchased Zerto.

Live replication and up to the second type of failover are valuable. The fact that we can do test failovers and failbacks is important for our ISO certification.

More user support would be best for me because I'm not in the product all the time. So, having strong support is probably the most important decision on any products that we buy.

The price is another thing that they definitely need to work on unless it has changed. I purchased mine a while back. 

When it is up and running, it is just always running, but because we're changing our infrastructure, basically, everything has to be destroyed and rebuilt.

I know it is scalable with the backup solution. I don't understand why that wasn't there early on, but it is neat that they've added that functionality in there.

It has been a long time since I've worked with them. So, I would rate them a 7 out of 10.

It is rare that I have to contact them. We are in the process of redoing our VMware infrastructure. We have to reinstall the whole product, which we haven't done for a long time. So, I'm not that familiar, and we're probably going to have to pay for services where I would like that to be handled by support to help us.

Neutral

It has been quite a while, but we used to use Double-Take to replicate some servers between offices. Zerto is much better at doing that functionality, and that's why we switched. 

The ease of use is definitely better with Zerto. The data recovery with Zerto is very fast. You just push buttons for recovery and flip back.

The initial setup was straightforward, but I had a team, probably from Zerto and not the consultant, that helped us with the installation. So, I had somebody right there holding my hand, and it was very easy to do.

That's hard to say because we haven't had a catastrophe. If we have a failure, hands down, I can't complain about that, but we haven't had any incidents.

Even though there is a fast speed of recovery and ease of use, I haven't measured the time savings and resource savings with Zerto. That's analytics, and we're not that detailed. We're user support focused.

It is very expensive. It is overpriced. No doubt. What held us up for many years from committing to buying it was always the cost. That's also why we only have 10 licenses.

We probably looked at other solutions, but I don't recall what they were at this time.

I know that they have a backup now, which they didn't have when I purchased originally, but we don't use that today. It may be something we'll look into. 

The solution is great. I'd rate it a 10 out of 10.

We have customers who come in for DR as a service, but we also do inter-cloud DR.

It has brought customers into our cloud, since this was a barrier to get in. We have used the migration model a lot to bring customers in. We just brought in a customer from Microsoft Hyper-V into our VMware file. That would have been a difficult challenge if we did not have Zerto as a tool.

Zerto has helped to reduce downtime with several customers. For example, we had a customer who had many of their VMs encrypted. They had about 40 to 60 terabytes worth of data. To recover that from backup would have taken days. We were able to bring them up at the DR site, getting them up and running, within hours. This would have cost the customer millions if they had been down. As a title company, if they would have been down, that would have disrupted a whole title industry, where people are trying to buy houses. If you can't get the title for the house, then you can't move forward. Other people wouldn't have been able to sell their house. There would have been a ripple effect. So, that was huge.

It has definitely helped our customers reduce their DR testing. We can do failover tests live in the middle of the day and generate a report, and they are comfortable with it. 

Journaling is by far the most valuable feature. We have used it several times for customers who have gotten ransomware and had to do a rollback. Having the right time period was important. Some of them had their backups encrypted. So, they didn't encrypt the Zerto machine seven days previously, and we were able to bring that back up.

I have been using Zerto for about seven years.

It is very stable.

It is very scalable. All the workloads go on hosts. So, in order to grow, you will need to have more hosts anyway.

From the relationship standpoint, we have never had a local rep in South Bend, Indiana. It has always been somebody in Boston, and there is not a lot of communication. That is one of the big things. We would like help driving the business and talking to our sales people as well as more involvement from them. We could really utilize it more, drawing more customers in, but we need help with that.

I would rate the technical support as seven out of 10. Where it becomes difficult is if Tier 1 can't help you, then it takes a long time to get to Tier 2 or the development side, if something is beyond their capabilities.

Neutral

We use VMware High Availability, which is one of the options in our cloud. It is a less expensive option. So, we have customers who want that. Also, we have tried Veeam Backup & Replication, which is not cloud-native, so we don't use that. However, a company, whom we acquired, was using it. So, we tried it out.

Zerto is a lot easier to use. It has a lot more features, as far as orchestration, than VMware High Availability. The reallocation of IPs and the networking part of it are not that great in VMware High Availability. Plus, the retention that you get with Zerto is better than High Availability. Veeam didn't get into that much, and there is no orchestration into the cloud. 

The initial setup is very straightforward. The wizard that you run through is just very straightforward. If it is a DR-as-a-service customer on my end, then I am just deploying it as sort of a cloud connect, which is very easy.

I deploy it for all our customers.

We have absolutely seen ROI. Over time, we make money off of the CPU, RAM, and storage of Zerto usage. We benefit that way.

In a world where others are catching up, e.g., VMware High Availability, there needs to be a less expensive option as well. When a customer has approximately 100 VMs, if you multiply by 40, we aren't charging a very high margin on it at all since the license is so expensive. We feel their pain. That is the most expensive part of it. The storage, CPU, and RAM are a lot less. It is the licensing that is really expensive. Whereas, with an option like VMware High Availability, it is a couple dollars per month. That is our spend that we are charged by VMware, then our margin is higher on those VMs. Giving us some ability to have higher margins, as an MSP, would be a good thing.

I would rate Zerto as nine out of 10.

We are replicating all of our production VMs to a DR site. We also have another offsite vCenter that we are replicating to a DR site for protection and eventual testing.

It makes me feel more comfortable that we have something to fall back on in case of a disaster. We are a large insurance company, so we have a lot of different applications and SQL Servers. We never had a disaster recovery site before, so this will protect us in the event of a disaster.

A good, valuable feature is using the preseeded LUNs, when deleting a virtual machine. Then, I put the VPG back to keep track of where I was at, so I don't have to replicate everything. Instead, I just preseeded LUNs since it needs less replication time.

It is fairly intuitive and easy to use.

You can go back fairly quickly. You push the button and there you are.

I need to get up to the latest version so I can move my journals to a particular LUN, saving them with a particular storage altogether, rather than with the virtual machine. This is not available until I upgrade, and I need to upgrade all my hypervisors. This would be something that would be nice to have if it could be used on older versions.

I have been using Zerto for almost three years.

It has been stable. We have had glitches between our site and DR site. When the MPLS comes back up, Zerto just kicks right back off, doing what it needs to do.

As we have been growing more VMs in production, I have still been adding to Zerto. So, I haven't had any problems with the amount of VMs and everything that Zerto can handle.

I haven't really had any problems with support. Most of the time, when calling support, I find the answer before they call me back. Or, they will send me an email, and say, "Here, try this."

I would rate the technical support as nine or 10 (out of 10).

Positive

We didn't previously use another solution.

It provides us with a safety net.

We evaluated RecoverPoint, which was very difficult to set up. Even as a test, it was hard to set up. With Zerto, all you have to do is deploy the executable and start setting things up. So, it was very easy. Then, I insisted that the company buy Zerto for me.

RecoverPoint was difficult to set up and use. It wasn't as menu-driven as Zerto. 

We really haven't done any recovery or rollbacks. We are getting there. Later this year, we will be doing those types of failover tests, rollback tests, etc.

We haven't done DR testing. That will probably be done in the next three months.

I would rate Zerto as 10 out of 10.

We mostly use it for disaster recovery purposes. We do a lot of migrations as well, e.g., VM from one site to another. We use Zerto for that, as we have hundreds of VMs that we protect as our main DR position using Zerto.

In general, our DR position is entirely based around Zerto. We use it for everything. We just have a couple things that we don't put on it. There are a couple of Oracle things that we replicate with different methods, but we pretty much do everything related to DR with Zerto.

We are not using it for backup. We are using it for continuous DR and replication between two on-prem sites. 

We have two data center sites with bidirectional replications. Each site protects the other site and we have our VPGs that go back and forth.

We perform more DR testing now because it is so easy. For example, what we are doing right now is baselines on our recovery time objectives, determining, "Okay, if we recover one VM, it takes this long. If we recover another VM this size, it is this long." Then, we recover 10, 100, and 800. That way, we get kind of a forecast, when we add VMs, about how that will affect our DR stance.

When we need to move a VM from one data center to another, it is replicated there. We don't need to do any snapshots of storage. We just make a VPG for it, do a move action, and it is just there. It works really well.

The test features have been really good for us. Our DR testing goes very quickly and easily now for all our stuff with Zerto. We have our priority recovery process, where we cover our databases for our app servers and web servers. All our teams pretty much get their VMs very quickly. The RPOs are very low. 

It is very easy to use. There are a lot of training materials online on the Zerto portal, which make it very simple to learn and use. You could go from not knowing how to use it to fully understanding all of it in a day. This can be done by using the Zerto University, getting your little certification and making your boss happy. It is pretty easy to set up VPG-wise.

You have a 24-hour journal. The amount of disasters and things that you can recover from using a 24-hour journal is huge, e.g., ransomware. We haven't had to do that yet, but the possibility is there. It is good to know that you can go back as far as you need.

I would like to see the app be more like the analytics site. Right now, when you go into the analytics, you need to zoom in real tight on your browser. You get a lot more from the analytics site than you do from the app. If they made those two more similar, it would be really useful for day-to-day monitoring of your stuff.

I don't like the evacuation process. The host evacuation process could be a little simpler too. It takes our maintenance a bit longer, when we are doing host maintenance, because we still need to evacuate the vRAs manually. I know they tried to make it more automatic, but it is not quite there yet.

I have been using it for at least three years in my job function.

We have had no problems with it. Stability-wise, I can only say positive things because we haven't had any real negatives with it.

It is very scalable. If you add a data center, then you just add a ZVM at that data center, link it up, and add your vRAs. After that, you are ready to start making VPGs. It is very simple to set up.

We don't have issues with scaling. If a vRA is getting a bit overloaded, it makes little vRAs. So, it kind of handles itself. We have our vRAs at the maximum size, as far as CPU and memory, that they can be. Our RPOs are really short, so we are doing pretty well for our size.

Zerto's support is always responsive. I have never had any problems with it. Our lead Zerto engineer does a lot more stuff than I do as far as with support. Typically, I will escalate to her. If there is an issue, then I defer to her. However, as far as my experience with support, I have experienced nothing but good things. The learning portal, myZerto portal, and analytics are very good. I don't have to use support very often, which is a good thing.

If I were to rate it, I would probably rate it as 10 out of 10. Every time that I have needed them, they have been responsive and quick. I haven't used them that much, but when I have, they have been very responsive.

Positive

We have used SRM, who is Zerto's main competitor. 

SRM was pretty quick. However, the speed of recovery with Zerto is so simple. It can failover, e.g., do whatever kind of failover you want it to do. You choose your VPGs, then you are off. It is really fast and simple. A lot of people could handle using it pretty easily.

I haven't found it to be hard. When you add a new host, you just go to set up and add a new host, then it builds a vRA. It is pretty easy to manage alerts. It will tell you exactly what is wrong, e.g., this doesn't have enough scratch disk, so you need to go update that. Or, this host is offline, e.g., you forgot to evacuate it, so then you need to take it out of Zerto. So, it will alert you to that stuff.

I have done my share of deploying vRAs. Though, our lead Zerto engineer handled most of that stuff from the initial setup.

We have definitely seen a return on investment. We can move any of our VMs from either of our data centers back and forth very easily, bringing them back and doing tests as frequently as we want. We will be doing two tests next week. At previous companies, we did one test a year. Now, we are doing different stacks, e.g., if we do 20, 100, or 700 VMS, then it will be this long. So, we can forecast additional workload and how much that will affect our DR position.

Zerto is definitely a lot easier to manage. My whole team knows how to use it, since it is very simple to use and intuitive. There are a couple people who use it and I am the secondary person. We have someone who basically lives in Zerto. She adds stuff on a daily basis and we are always on top of our updates. We are always looking at whatever new features come out. We try to maximize our journals. We are up to 24 hours on a lot of them. Our average RPO is eight seconds, and that is pretty good since we have 1,500 VMs and 280-plus VPGs. We have a pretty big on-prem environment. So, the good thing about it is the frequency and ease of testing because Zerto is very simple to use. DR has enough problems to deal with and Zerto makes things a lot easier.

We have looked at Veeam and SRM. We examined the marketplace, Gartner, etc. This product that management chose, and we are pretty happy with it.

Give it a try. Move some VMs back and forth to see how easy it is to use. The one-to-many is pretty good. We have two sites, so it is not a very big deal for us to do that, but it is very useful. 

I would rate Zerto as 10 out of 10. I love Zerto's CDP solution. It is really easy to use. It does everything that we need it to do and scales easily.