OpenText Data Protector Reviews

file backup and VM backup 

Nops, MFDP Solution is outdated in termes of current backup and protection requirements and we are forced to move to another solution 

The world has changed, growth is happening towards cloud capabilities, and this product is not that developed. If you were to ask me what I like about Micro Focus Data Protector previously, I would say that this product is a single platform manager. At that time there was not any competition. You got the backup guaranteed even if it took some time, but in the they recovered the file. It was a really strong backup solution which contained a single license for tender services. But now the world has changed. There is instant recovery available but they're still an application based backup model. They didn't evolve.

Micro Focus Data Protector must improve its overall evolution record. They need to focus on hardware-based instant recovery, client recovery, and cloud abilities. Now there is no cloud ability.

Another thing they need to work on is that they still lack bare-metal VM and bare-metal recovery models.

The third issue they need to improve, and at the top of the list, is that with the RTO and RPO, we cannot come to a customer as an industry best. Because what happens when you sell is that recovery takes the longest time. This is the pain point in the solution, that it takes time compared to instant recovery.

In terms of additional features I would like to see included in the next release of Micro Focus Data Protector, I will be looking for instant recovery features and for better reporting. To sum up, instant recovery and cloud ability (backup to cloud, return to cloud and restore).

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector in my current environment for about one and a half years and almost seven years total.

Currently, I can only give negative feedback because my experience in its current state is not up to the mark.

It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product.

But in the VM, nobody is looking for backup for the sake of backup, you are looking at backup for the sake of recovery. It's not frequent, but it happens, so any backup solution should not be focused just on what to backup but focused on how fast they can recover the data. That is the idea of Rubrik. The other competitors don't focus on backup, they focus on recovery. They talk about the instant recovery in backup, the RPO and RTO. When you talk about relation, the focus is towards stability and client complaints. And they still don't have their own dedicated hardware for the backup.

Nops

So I went from the Omni Backup to HP Data Protector to Micro Focus Data Protector. I have seen all three transition products. They have stopped developing. I don't know why that happened.

High in SA renewal cost for not future development 

Yes, at that time they are leaders in the backup

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus Data Protector a three or three point five at the highest. If somebody wants to argue, I can go up to three point five, otherwise, three. It is very simple - they have not adopted the latest technologies. Micro Focus Data Protector works, but it's very slow and for the environment I'm running in there are better backups.

What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc.

We have a lot of requests for the Micro Focus team, particularly in terms of the Japanese data pattern, as it's not as good now. The Japanese data pattern accuracy of the Micro Focus Data Protector needs to be improved because there are a lot of false negatives and false positives. We are currently testing this and our product team has been communicating with the Micro Focus team.

What we'd like to see in the next release of the solution is better compatibility with other products, apart from a more accurate Japanese data pattern.

I've been dealing with Micro Focus Data Protector for two years.

Micro Focus Data Protector, in terms of stability, is not so bad.

I'm not sure how scalable Micro Focus Data Protector is because the DLP service goes through my company's SaaS product.

There's no need for me to contact technical support for Micro Focus Data Protector because my company's product team is there to answer my questions.

I didn't use a different solution before using Micro Focus Data Protector. It is a first for me.

The deployment for Micro Focus Data Protector was easy.

Pricing for Micro Focus Data Protector is reasonable.

My company and its customers use Micro Focus Data Protector, though I'm not sure which version of the solution is being used. It's deployed on the public cloud and via a SaaS service.

My rating for Micro Focus Data Protector is eight out of ten.

I'm a reseller of Micro Focus Data Protector.

It works excellently only with Oracle.

It has a lot of undeveloped functions like window searching and patent searching, and within the main backup processes like VMware and Microsoft Exchange.

It's completely not user-friendly, and it has no built-in antivirus software. In my opinion, Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution.

I would like to see the quick search bar working without complexities and would like to see the building reporting. I would like to see it deny the architecture of the client and server and work directly via APIs.

I would like to see Micro Focus Data Protector be completely web based with fast HTML files. That would reduce a lot of installation time with all those script integrations and so on.

It would be good to have automation of the broken backups. For example, NetBackup had a great feature when the backup broke for some reason. It would automatically try to resume it eight or nine times and only then would give a fail error.

The stability depends on the environment because there can be some special cases where Micro Focus Data Protector is not stable at all.

The technical support from Micro Focus is terrible in terms of the quality and problem solving. For example, let's assume that something went wrong when running Data Protector in a large infrastructure environment with permanent backups going on. When we contact technical support, they will ask us to provide logs. However, if we turn the bug mode on it will affect all of the systems, and we simply will not be able to collect the requested logs for that purpose. So, it becomes impossible to provide the necessary log files because we cannot stop the critical backups.

I have some experience with NetBackup. It was more stable, user-friendly, and had the best support. However, the decision makers decided that Micro Focus Data Protector was the better way to go, and we had to switch.

As for the initial setup, it's perfect for small- and medium-sized companies.

The pricing is acceptable for enterprise level companies, but it's not acceptable for small- and medium-sized businesses. Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution, and it should cover small- and medium-sized businesses with acceptable prices.

I would advise you not to use Micro Focus Data Protector and would rate it at four on a scale from one to ten.

We can back up Oracle databases, SQL databases, Windows machines, Linux, and virtual machines like VMware with this product.

In terms of configuration, it's very flexible. 

If you have an idea of what you are doing, it's very flexible and very stable. We've been using it since 2010 without an issue.

The downside of the flexibility on offer is if you over-configure it, it may fail to function as some configurations may not match. That said, it's a very flexible tool to use it. It helps to start with minimal configuration to avoid misalignment of parameters.

The scheduling could be better. We thought they had made some improvements, however, the scheduling of backups needs to be more flexible and we need to be able to apply different policies at different times.

I've been using the solution since 2010. I've been using it since version six onwards. It's been more than ten years at this point.

The stability is great. For the most part, there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. However, when it comes to new versions, there are certain issues that crop up. They may be due to new developments.

It's scalable. You can have multiple Cell Managers. For example, let's say your environment is very large. You can have the backup server dedicated to a certain group of targets, and then you can have multiple backup servers. You can have another backup server that manages the other backup servers, which means now you can have a global view of all the backup servers. 

At the same time, when it comes to storage, you can integrate it into several storage areas. Instead of just using tape, you can use the backup directly to disk. That means even the disk capacity can scale up to many terabytes depending on the storage you are using.

In terms of users, I can't say we have so many users as we are an enterprise, and within an enterprise, there'll be people dedicated to managing the backup. 

As we have a couple of hundreds of systems that we are backing up, I would say that we use it quite extensively.

We've used technical support in the past. For example, recently, we were changing our licenses from the traditional licensing to capacity We had to ask them to help us apply the license. That was the first time we were applying that license. For the traditional licenses, we've been doing it ourselves without a problem. They helped to show us how to apply the license, which means next time we can do it ourselves.

The initial setup is straightforward if you know what you are doing. However, due to the flexibility, you may find that you need someone who can guide you in terms of doing the minimum that is required, instead of just over-configuring it. 

In 2010, when I started using it, the backups were actually failing every day, only to find that there were too many mismatching configurations due to the flexibility. 

The deployment process can take a couple of days. For us, we are a large environment. While the installation itself doesn't take long, the configuration will take time in terms of configuring the backup devices and making sure that everything is working. We need to test and then add new clients. Most of the time required is just to configure the backup devices, like the disks to the virtual tapes, and add that line. However, the installation itself doesn't take long. That part you can do in half a day.

There are just a few people managing the backup environment, however, there are a couple of hundred systems that are being backed up. In terms of the people, we have about five users who look after the environment. However, it's stable. They are not busy with the environment every day. It's just to manage backups.

In general, the size of the team needed to watch the system depends on the size of your environment. The platform itself doesn't need a lot of people. One person is enough. That said, just looking after backups is what makes you look for more people. Looking after the platform, we've been using one person for a long time. 

In terms of licensing, you just pay for the licenses you use. That said, it depends on what you want to do - depending on the functionality you need. With capacity-based licensing, you just pay for the size of the backups, and you have all the functionality that comes with the platform.

We've tried Veeam for VMware, for virtual machines. At the time, it had limitations. We have since stuck with Data Protector. We have evaluated other solutions, however, for some reason, we decided not to go further.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are almost using the latest version of the solution. We are actually using 10. We haven't yet upgraded, however, we are just a step away from the latest.

I would recommend the solution to others. They are 100% perfect. Just like any company, they have their own issues. That said, I would still recommend it as a comprehensive backup and recovery solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten.

We primarily use data protection in complex environments with large Oracle databases, Hyper-V, and VMWare hypervisors with replication of backup sets to DR site. 

It's used for data protection of large Oracle Databases, backups of small branch offices, zero-downtime backup of mission-critical databases with HPE storage (XP or 3PAR), data protection of most common NAS appliances through NDMP protocol, and the backup of Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Sharepoint, and the Microsoft SQL Server. 

It provides a consolidation of backups to the tape library and to the cloud provider. 

Data Protector works in conjunction with a Catalyst-based deduplication feature and HPE StoreOnce appliances to provide us with the tools to build reliable DR solutions for backups through Catalyst stores replication using ARS between the sites. 

The wide variety of parameters that can be used to perform fine-tuning of integrations helped us to reach stability with the backups of complex environments. 

The push install feature helped us in completing large migrations from other backup software vendors in a short amount of time.

Oracle DB instances backup is one of the main script integrations in the backup specification of the NDMP three-way backups. It lets us use StoreOnce Catalyst stores as a destination through an ethernet connection, bypassing the SAN and avoiding the use of physical and virtual tape libraries. 

Catalyst stores replication using ARS between two sites - each with a distinct cell manager. 

The command-line interface is user-friendly and well documented in the reference guide. 

Push install from DP GUI interface lets us deploy/upgrade clients of most common platforms in a short amount of time.

The VMware GRE is still limited and complex to implement with differences in behavior between Windows and Linux mount proxies. 

ZDB has too many constraints (e.g. it doesn't work for Linux volumes mirrored with software different from LVM). 

Microfocus needs to build a partnership with other vendors in addition to HPE as far as cloud consolidation of backups. 

With the 11.0 release, there have been improvements in terms of security (Secure communication) however, the bar is still not high enough. 

Data Protector advanced scheduler should be replaced with a more reliable scheduler such as the Veritas One.

I've used the solution for 12 years.

The solution, especially if it's implemented in the Linux platform, is very stable.

The scalability is good, however, being a solution that relies on HW from other vendors (HPE, EMC, etc.) scalability isn't a mess for Data Protector itself.

The customer service is discreet.

Neutral

In the past, I used EMC Networker and Veritas Netbackup and I switched to HPE Data Protector for business needs.

The initial setup was straightforward. The installation manuals are well done and there are several setup wizards at our disposal.

All implementations were handled in-house.

Information is reserved and cannot be shared as per company policies.

The setup cost is not so large compared with other software, while as far as licensing goes, I suggest one per capacity (Front End TB) if the environment is heterogeneous with both physical and virtual servers.

We did not evaluate other options first.

We primarily use the solution as a backup. It basically backs up all of my premium items.

It's a good product that's pretty easy to use.

The solution is scalable. 

The initial setup is rather straightforward.

It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support.

We've been using the solution for eight years or so. It's been a while. 

The product is scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem. 

We have less than 100 people on the solution right now. 

The level of support is lacking. They need to step up the level of service they offer. We aren't 100% satisfied. They are friendly, however, they aren't really flexible. 

The installation is pretty straightforward and simple. It's not too complex or overly difficult. A company wouldn't have any trouble setting it up.

The deployment is fast and likely you can have it up and running in a day.

You don't need a big technical team to handle deployment and maintenance. You might just need two people who are engineers. 

I handled the implementation by myself. I did not need the help of any integrators or consultants at the time. 

The product is reasonably priced. It's not too expensive. 

We're currently using version 10 of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's pretty good. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

We use Micro Focus Data Protector to back up all our infra servers, plus file share and some VM backup.

The normal file system backup is easy to manage, and our success rate is quite high.

The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements. Furthermore, if we want to change something, we have to run it through all the policies one by one. They don't have a central place to modify and apply it to all the policies. The virtual environment backup could also be better.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for four years.

It's a stable solution, but every upgrade is such a headache. For example, we currently have to upgrade to a new version, but somehow the connection to storage isn't happening because there are issues with the library.

Micro Focus Data Protector is scalable. It's quite simple as we can just add on more media to fulfill all the requirements. Right now, a few thousand people use this solution in our organization.

We had a few cases through email, but one pain point is that they always go through to level one, go to level two, and so on. They spend a lot of time explaining what's going on before the problem is solved. 

Previously, we used Veritas Backup Exec. So, compared to Veritas Backup Execs, it's a little bit cheaper.

The initial setup is quite straightforward, like Master Media Server. 

Our licensing is on a capacity basis.

I wouldn't recommend Micro Focus Data Protector to be used as a cloud backup. But for on-premise and file share use, it's quite okay.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Micro Focus Data Protector a seven.

We primarily use the solution for our server backup and some Linux system backups as well as a backup for our SQL.

The main reason for usage is to protect our information. However, we've searching for new tools for increasing the volume of information and increasing platform protection. Unfortunately, Data Protector is not exactly the tool for that task.

The stability of the product seems to be quite good.

The solution isn't ideal for big data or large CRMs.

We have been lacking proper training on the solution. This seems to be a weak point of the product. They should offer better training for their users.

Other tools seem to be easier to use.

The solution should offer support for the backup of cloud platforms. The same system needs to work with replication and mirror sites, for example.

I've been dealing with the solution for five years or so.

The stability of the solution is quite good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. It's reliable.

As this is an appliance, the scalability is limited to the sizing. There's only so much capacity that is possible.

It's difficult to get technical support and proper assistance for this tool.

I've only worked with this particular company for eight months and they've had the solution for a number of years previous to my start. I did not play a role in the implementation and therefore can't speak to how easy or difficult the setup or deployment was for them.

I'm not sure how many people the company used for deployment or how many are needed for maintenance.

I don't have any insights into the licensing or costs. It's not an aspect of the solution that I handle directly.

We're currently planning on changing out backup tools. At the moment we're looking at Veeam and Barracuda. We have some systems deployed by Spanish users and they already use Barracuda, which is why we are considering it. We're taking licensing costs into account, however, we're finding that the most visible difference is the user interface as well as the style of use - for example, how to backup and recover data.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a special relationship with this company.

I'm not sure of the exact version we're using. It may be some iteration of version six.

I'd advise new users to implement the solution using a support person and good documentation and to make sure they are putting the correct data policies in place.

In the past, it was quite a good tool, however, now, due to a lack of training, or due to having a lack of staff that is trained in it, it is likely much easier to have something like Veeam, which isn't as complicated of a solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a five. In comparison, I'd rate Veeam at an eight.