OpenText Data Protector Reviews

I use the Micro Focus Data Protector for our corporate data backup requirements. That is the main business need for this product by our company.

I don't like any function of the Micro Focus Data Protector. Honestly, I hate the Micro Focus Data Protector. It's not really good.

I have used Micro Focus Data Protector for the file backup facilities. My primary use of the software is to backup file data.

The software needs to redesign the UI and they should organize the functions so that they are much easier to use. It's very hard to understand how to use the software.

Micro Focus Data Protector is stable. I have one customer using it. The data center utilizes it. 

It is scalable. We use it for our data center and website.

We haven't contacted the technical support with Micro Focus.

The initial setup is very complex. It's hard to understand how the components work together and how each component is related together. I read a lot of information but I still don't really understand MFDP. I don't spend much time on it, therefore it's hard to understand. 

The information about MFDP is easy, but the application of it is not easy. When I deploy the software, I only understand it because I have written down all the information.

It just takes a few hours to finish the installation and the configuration.

I have deployed Micro Focus Data Protector myself with some technical issues and problems.

The Micro Focus Data Protector solution is not really good, but it is "good enough" that it can help our client requirements. If I compare Micro Focus Data Protector with other solutions, MFDP just does not have enough complexity in the UI.

On a scale from 1 to 10, I would give Micro Focus Data Protector a seven. They should design the solution so that it is much easier for deployment and make the UI easy to use.

The most valuable feature is the ability to recover individual files. It's a quick process that takes very little time. It also provides the ability to manage other tape backup systems remotely from a centralized server.

It's given us the flexibility to recover individual files, which is important to us because we have a lot of end users who have the tendency to accidentally delete files on the shared drives. We're able to locate which tape the files are on. It's a pretty straightforward process.

We have a disaster recovery site and I'm trying to figure out how to export the internal database from our named site manage to disaster recovery site manager, that took some time. I wrote a script that's working, but it's kind of a cumbersome script to export the internal database and import it in our disaster recovery site. I have that script going everyday. If something happens, we have the latest database with our recovered data at a different site. But this is not a good process, so it would be good to have it streamlined.

I've used it for five months.

We've had no issues deploying it.

It's been pretty stable. I haven't had any instances of crashes.

We've had no issues scaling it.

Technical support is OK. They helped me with exporting our internal database. They responded to me within a reasonable time, but the person with whom I spoke didn't really know how to do or understand what I was doing. I had to figure it out on my own.

Learning the ins and outs of the application itself will take some time to wrap your head around, but once you do it's pretty easy to manage overall. It's a pretty straightforward product.

Our primary use case is to back up databases, file systems, servers and information in the database.

Micro Focus Data Protector's most valuable feature is its interaction with the fiber share. It is easy to use, we use it to back up without any problem to VTLs, and can use the Fiber Channel that is still the TCP.

In terms of what can be improved, I would say integrations with MongoDB. We use MongoDB and we need to go to scripts to do backups. We need more integrations.

The feature I would like to see in the next release is only more integration with new databases.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for about 20 years.

We are currently using the latest update in some platforms. We are using version 10.

Its performance and stability are okay.

In terms of maintenance, we only need to do updates when we receive information. Not more than.

Micro Focus Data Protector is an easily scalable solution.

We have six people in my company using it.

The initial setup was simple for me because I am experienced and have used Data Protector for many years. It takes one hour maximum.

I would recommend Micro Focus Data Protector to other users.

On a scale of one to ten, compared with other solutions, I would give it a nine.

• Backup to Disk with StoreOnce software catalyst
• Disaster Recovery
• Zero downtime backup

Data Protector helps us to maintain data consistency and recover data with minimum downtime. We can recover the user-specific data when there is data loss, such as a mailbox or file server.

Having dual-cell manager in the environment at primary and secondary sites, data restoration and services can be made up in case the primary site goes down completely.

• Technical Support
• Troubleshooting
• Restore using multi-path
• Restore for Microsoft Exchange
• GRE

I've used it for more than seven years.

I've had no issues with deploying it.

There isn't much instability as the product has been stable with the exception of a few bugs during upgrades.

There have been no issue with scalability until now for mid-level datacenters.

4/10

Technical support is very poor and I would rate it as 1/10. The response from L1 is very slow and there is no handover when the engineer finishes the shift. There's no direct interaction with the L2 or L3, which makes the case take more time. L1 basically behaves as a mediator for transferring the information from the customer to L2 or L3, and they don't perform any troubleshooting.

I haven't migrated a customer with different solution to Data Protector, but I have seen a customer move from Data Protector to Avamar, Veeam, and Commvault, who had better product offerings.

The initial setup is straightforward if you understand the architecture correctly.

We implemented it with out in-house team.

Licensing is categorized for each sub component rather than on the basis of services which is what we would like. For example, there is one license for all GREs, and similarly one license for all zero downtime backup products.

No other options were looked at.

It's easy to learn for new users, not complicated, and has a simple backup and restore procedure. Last but not the least, it's easy to recover in case of disaster. The drawback is that there is some inconsistency and bugs with the level of technical support.

I would recommend the product to others keeping in mind the ease of implementation, maintenance of software, and easy backup and restore steps.

I think that the most valuable feature for us of HP Data Protector is its ability to connect and integrate with all the other systems of our company. It's very important to us that all individual solutions in our IT infrastructure are able to work together.

Because HP Data Protector connects with the other systems in our company, we're able to better use our time and resources to address other concerns instead of dealing with issues of incompatibility.

There are several areas for improvement, including the database, the stability, ease-of-use, and the interface (which is too old).

I've used it for about four years.

Yes, we've had some issues with deployment. Sometimes we've needed to connect to a client and launch the deployment from there.

Yes, we've had issues with stability. Specifically, the database that uses this version of of Data Protector is unstable.

We haven't had any issues with scalability of the solution itself. The only thing that holds it back are the licenses we've had to purchase to run more jobs.

I'd say that customer service is nice.

Technical support is good, but it seems that we're always needing to update versions.

We used a previous solution and we switched to HP Data Protector based on our partner's recommendation.

The initial setup was complex and we needed support from HP to complete it.

A vendor team implemented it for us. They had a nice level of expertise.

I'd say that our ROI is bad.

HP Data Protector is an expensive solution.

We did not evaluate other options.

My advice would be to evaluate it first. My opinion is that HP doesn't improve this product enough.

It provides us with reliable backups and restores.

The reliability of HP Data Protector is the most valuable feature for us.

The graphical interface needs to be improved.

No issues encountered.

No issues encountered.

Customer Service:

It's great.

Technical Support:

It's great.

We used Arcserve 2000, and switched because Data Protector is more reliable and the licensing options are better.

It was mostly straightforward.

The implementation was done by a technical team from HP who had a great level of expertise.

We also looked at Symantec Backup Exec.

It is fast, reliable, and its licensing policy is great.

The most valuable feature for me is the number of agents available to back up our data.

It provides one solution for all our backup needs.

We could use the ability to do snapshots for mass storage systems.

The stability is very good.

Technical support is very good.

The initial setup was 12 years ago. That’s a long time ago.

I would advise colleagues to have a look at it, and maybe to choose it.

The most important criterion when we select a vendor is the catalog of products, quality of the product, and the price.

It's very easy to use. Really, the simplicity of it is something we find very useful. Otherwise, it might not be a solution that's beneficial for us.

Our central system must be powered at all times. Data Protector is always available for powering our central system. It does exactly what we need it to do.

It works with virtual machines, but it's way too complex right now. Also, the licensing structure is not very good.

We've used it for 15 years.

It deploys without any issues.

It's quite stable.

We use the 300 series servers. We've determined that it won't scale any more for us while we researched an alternative backup solution. Have have 90% virtualization now that we're suing VMware and CommVault.

Technical support is quite good.

The initial setup was complex.

It's not an expensive solution.