The solution could improve by having a version to be compatible with the Linux system. They have improved the storage depository using the Linux proxy and Linux storage, but it can completely run on the Linux environment it would be much better.

I would want them to improve some technical features that are still missing because we are working with NetApp NVMe and they're not fully supporting it yet. But both NetApp and Veeam know about it and they're working on it. 

I'd like some improvements in ransom protection capabilities for Windows because they have some features with the Linux repositories but not with Windows.

There is no support for backing up snapshots from NVMe namespaces on NetApp.

For the cloud solution we need the Sophos backup solution, but I think that they are close to releasing this.

Its native capability for talking to the public cloud needs improvement. Connecting to a public cloud is a little bit more of a challenge when it comes to Veeam than it is with Rubrik or Commvault. There are still some hoops that you got to jump through in order to send Veeam backups out to public cloud repositories. It is not as simple as it is with other products.

My biggest issue with Veeam at the moment is how the backup reports are displayed. We use the SolarWinds integration to generate consolidated reports for monitoring purposes, but we aren't getting all the available data shown to us in the way that we want. For our Apache site regions, we are not able to get all our site-to-site and server-to-server reports in one single PDF or Excel sheet.

Ideally, we would want the reporting mechanism to add everything into a single file automatically, because currently we have to do that manually. For example, when I'm looking at server backups for an entire region, I would like to be able to add all those server backup reports into a separate reporting group, which would then be added into its own separate status report for that region only.

We also have to perform large NAS backups up to 10TB of data, and we have found that it can be a bit slow. Along with improving the speed of these transfers, I would like to see Veeam add more support for block level backups and snapshots of NAS storage devices.

Veeam Backup & Replication can be installed on a platform like Windows only. Veeam has more components but is always installed on Windows VMs. For some of the roles like proxy, Veeam could deploy and develop a solution that does not need to use Windows VMs because of its cost in terms of licenses and scalability. The solution works only on Windows but should be able to work on platforms like Linux in the future.

The scalability of the product in large organizations is an area of concern where improvements are required.

I would like to improve Cloud application, as well as disaster recovery since we must export our data from our buildings to another location. It would be beneficial to have enhanced solutions for database backup, particularly for Oracle databases in the context of SAP systems.

The pricing model could be improved. It can be made cheaper. Also, Veeam should provide more training for the partners so that they are able to give better support to customers. In the next release, I want to see full integration with the cloud.

In terms of improvement for VM, I believe we should focus on reducing data leakage and addressing a specific issue. There's a situation where VMs run on different locks. It's running on the VM while having a relationship with nearby solutions running on the same server and storage. This creates a bottleneck that needs to be eliminated. The efficiency of the solution should be improved.

The SME that helped us with the implementation would probably have more insight because he used it way more than we have. We just use it for making sure that our backups are done daily, and the replications are being performed between sites. We haven't had any issues at all with it other than the fact that there is a slight process to acquire additional licenses if we want to expand our number of hosts. That's because it is based on the number of cores and threads that are used. 

If they could add more support for all of the modern hypervisors, that would make Veeam much better and more flexible to work with. For example, there is no solution for VM to VM replication when it comes to Oracle OEM servers. Instead, we have had to implement Oracle Data Guard and some other syncing procedures for our replication of VMs with Oracle OEM.

On a separate note, I also think that they could add more functionality when it comes to real-time replications. 

The one downside to Veeam is that they don't have a cloud product of their own. They partner with people and they support vSphere 7 and our cloud backup doesn't, and neither do many of the cloud backups that they partner with. I've looked at a couple of them. We partner with iland and they don't support version 7. They only support version 6.7.

Iland is our cloud backup and it utilizes Veeam. Veeam supports version 7 of vSphere, so they stay pretty up to date. They lag behind, but everyone lags behind a little bit. Once vSphere VMware does an upgrade, it takes a little while for places to support that upgrade. Of course, we always wait until our backup product supports it. But Veeam does a pretty decent job of keeping a short window, and they're able to support a fairly current version of VMware.

It needs to support more applications. In terms of supported applications, Oracle SQL and Office 365 are supported, but I am not sure if it supports Linux-based applications. That's why I'm looking for an alternative. I am currently testing Commvault. The advantage of Commvault is that a lot of applications are supported with it.

I am not sure if CIFS is currently supported. It would be nice to have this feature in case it is not already supported.

I would like to see the replication and a recovery plan of the servers in the cloud. It's very important.

In terms of what can be improved, we have already integrated with some Unix environments, which were not supported before. They have some limitations on integration with the advanced features as snapshotting and for some types of storage. We are almost compatible with around four vendors now - HPE , EMC, IBM and Dell. We could go further for this one. They could increase the compatibility for the advanced integrations. 

CDP also requires a lot of development, because there are a lot of restrictions now for CDP. There is a chance to improve CDP and make it much easier for the customers.

We can make CDP more flexible. Hypervisor on Linux are the first generation. So, till now a few customers are testing this. I think it will take some time to redevelop them and to integrate them properly. 

Veeam needs to have more support for non-Windows systems and other databases. For example, I can do SQL with Veeam but not Informix or Oracle. This is unfortunate because we have many partners with Oracle systems and Informix databases, and Veeam does not yet have the agents we need for specific Oracle and UNIX operating systems.

Because we are limited to using Veeam on mainly Microsoft systems, we have to resort to another backup and replication provider, Commvault, to handle these other systems. In general, I think that Veeam needs more improvement in terms of support for other applications and IT systems. It would be much more convenient for us to have all our backups for the different systems covered under one solution only, rather than having to use Veeam alongside other solutions like Commvault.

In terms of what could be improved, they need a better solution for backend storage. Other backup products that I've used, like Commvault, have at least a disc based backup. If you don't have a D duplicating appliance, like Commvault who has its own duplication engine, it's doing its best to duplicate data going into the repository. Veeam is not very good at that. There is some level of data reduction, but it's not much. So if your backup targets don't have a good D duplication data reduction, it's a problem because you just create massive amounts of data on the backend.

They need to improve the reporting. There is something called Veeam ONE Reporting — it's a separate module altogether. It's not included in the Veeam Backup and Replication bundle; it has to be purchased separately.

There's a lot of room for improvement surrounding the backup process. Searching through folders is complicated; customization involving backups is lacking. For instance, if I want to backup a particular server and store it in another repository, I have to first define a repository then I have to create a policy. Next, I have to execute the policy. It's not as if I just snap my fingers and it works — no. You need to build it and put that intelligence inside of it in order for it to act intelligently. 

In addition, it should be more flexible when it comes to customizing policies. 

I have found that the reporting could improve in its structure.

In an upcoming release, the remote site application, physical workload, and other application integration could improve.

Margins should not be distinct; instead, they should seamlessly integrate with the Veeam Backup and Replication tools, requiring minimal separation.

Until internet connectivity becomes standard all over the country and all over the world, as far as minimum speeds, the main thing would be just making sure that your data is being transferred as quickly as possible, that the data transfers are seated correctly, and that the replication takes place and is monitored. The service can be managed or unmanaged, it just depends on the customer's IT ability as to how much or how little we can help.

There is always room for improvement on anything, but at this point I think it's perfect. But I'm sure there are other things that customers are wanting that Veeam could probably put in their next update or patch. But at this point I don't have any information on that.

As companies grow, it just depends on what their needs are as to what we can help them with as far as the recovery is concerned. Larger businesses with more than 300 VMs would be a perfect scenario for Rubrik. Veeam, I think is good up until 300 VMs. With other services that we have, it could be lower than a hundred VMs, but it seems that Veeam is in a good spot.

Backup of physical servers. I know Veeam has vehemently said they will never go down that route but it's a feature I need, and badly. Having the ability to use Veeam within all our virtual environments is fantastic, but it also means we still have a requirement to use TSM to back up our physical servers via an agent. With endpoint protection features being announced recently, I can only hope that this develops into the backup of all physical devices and allows it to be managed through the Veeam console.

Recently I've been discussing the capabilities of endpoint protection with a Veeam Rep. around the area of enterprise applications. In this instance I'm focused on SQL and Exchange. Despite my protestations we are still using physical exchange servers (and I doubt we're the only enterprise) so being able to get a good backup of those servers is critical to allow replacement of current backup solutions. Right now Veeam are not confident with Exchange backups and would recommend one of the DAGs to be virtual to ensure the backup consistency. For SQL however they are happy with their testing and while not being a released feature it is something that can be backed up via endpoint protection. This area of development for Veeam is going to be a critical one for them to truly enter the enterprise backup arena.

The endpoint protection console is not centralized. It needs to be improved. The product must improve its reporting features so that it can be used for audit purposes.

The solution's admin scheduling scripts need improvement. Also, import and export processes for information and policies could be better.

The interface and cluster environments could be improved in the future as presently they are using agent interface instead of user interface. Also, the backup for the Oracle WAC environment can be improved.

There is room for improvement in the application backups, particularly for Oracle and SaaS systems. Veeam Backup & Replication offers a plugin specifically designed for Oracle and SAP HANA databases. In version twelve, they introduced enhancements that allow deploying the plugin from the backup server. However, manual configuration is still required on each server to schedule the backup and specify the backup repository. Additionally, transitioning from a Windows server to a Linux server requires converting the existing model. Previously, Veeam heavily relied on Windows and Microsoft SQL databases for their solution. Fortunately, in version twelve, they introduced an enhancement by offering the option to use a Postgres SQL database, which is an open-source alternative.

In a future version, it would be highly advantageous for the vendor to introduce a specific feature that addresses an important customer need. Many enterprise customers utilize deduplication appliances for storing their backups, particularly when compliance requirements demand data encryption during transit and at rest. While the current solution offers encryption during transit, there is a limitation when it comes to seamless integration with deduplication appliances. When encryption is enabled, backups are directed to a standard repository. Subsequently, enterprises are compelled to store encrypted backups on a staging repository before transferring them to the deduplication appliance. This approach affects deduplication ratios. Ideally, it would be beneficial for enterprises if there was a way to seamlessly encrypt backups on the staging repository and then move them to the deduplication appliance in their encrypted format without impacting deduplication ratios. Such an integration would greatly benefit enterprise customers.

The pricing could be improved. They should work to make it less expensive.

In one case, the solution did not support a backup from EIX Unix from IBM. This is the only handicap I've found in relation to the product.

Pricing is always an issue. The less it costs, the better for us and our clients. Therefore, if they can lower the costs, that would be ideal for us.

The ease of usability and a learning curve to get up to speed are usually important. If they can continue to streamline and simplify their product, that would help us a lot. During the initial setup especially, there's a bit of a learning curve. 

I think the backup and integration could be improved. 

Veeam Backup Replication could improve by making the monitoring system free. If I would like to have any monitoring system by Veeam I have to purchase it. It should come free with the solution. They should provide a monitoring system to make the work easier and smooth.

The replicating from Veeam Backup Replication to Azure cloud could be improved. Situation:seeding large amounts of data from veeam to azure. I opened up a ticket because there is no clear cut documentation (Steps) on how to do so. they have pieces of the process in different articles with different headings. i opened up a ticket and it was like i was the first customer to ask for this. seeding is when you have slow to medium bandwidth and need to offload the data locally then send it to azure. with some help from support i had to put together my own notes from alot of trial and error from ordering the wrong type of box from azure to completing the process once i actually got the data uploaded to azure. i just feel like they didn't do good job in documenting how to seed data to azure properly

The ability to do more backups should be addressed. This process would require us to increase the storage or do concurrent backups on tapes, necessitating changing the number of drives that can be used to write on tapes. 

I have issues with the licensing. 

The solution isn't ideal for small companies or systems. It's much more geared towards larger entities. 

The initial setup could be simplified. It takes a bit to find the documentation. 

It takes some time to get through the knowledge base and the changes in the versions over time.

Trying to find everything on how to configure it and set it up can get frustrating in trying to sort it out.

The cyber recovery and cyber protections need to be improved within the solution. Right now, they are quite limited. They need to be more extensive and more robust. It would be good to have machine alerts within the technician service in order to be more accurate and go more deeply into the process of validation for the backup data.

We see some limitations in the way that data is analyzed and the market update for the archive is handled.

The initial setup was not straightforward at all.

The licensing models, from a reseller's perspective, could be better. Veeam has changed its licensing models. It'd be nice to have some sort of cheat sheet as we are getting tripped up on the new licensing models. 

Although to Veeam, it probably seems easy for them to understand the licensing models, as a reseller of many different products, we're finding ourselves getting tripped up on just the licensing models. 

Any type of cheat sheet to help partners understand the licensing a little bit better, so we can have a quick reference guide when we're on the phone talking to customers would help us a lot. 

To someone like myself who covers VMware, Veeam, Dell, HP, and a wide set of products, anything to make my life easier to kind of solve the problem for the customer and close the deal and not have any unanswered questions, which are usually around how it's licensed and how it's priced, would help us sell more of their product.

The cloud part of it can be improved. There should be an option for Veeam in your own cloud, as compared to the Veeam cloud offering that's currently there. The rest of it is easy. 

While we do not consider it to be a big deal, I know there are other users who consider the running of the latest version of VMware vCenter while making use of the virtual environment to be an issue. One must update VMware or Veeam with care because of the compatibility issue involved. Installation and support must be taken into account. 

While strength, complexity and compatibility of the solution may pose issues for others, they do not for me. 

I feel the solution to be user-friendly. 

The monitoring, reporting and dashboard features are also fine. 

I am not aware of implementation issues and I have no concerns about the solution's security or stability. I have even tested the setup and it can be automated. At present, I see no need for an increase as I am not making 100 percent use of the product. 

This said, the limits of Windows integration on servers should be addressed. Many shops use only Linux and do not wish to run the Windows Server policy. As they have people with an understanding of Linux, they do not see the need to employ another person merely for backing up the server. 

Nowadays one can run Microsoft SQL Server on Linux without any problem, perhaps with this same ability being afforded to Windows Server. 

Occasionally, in the course of upgrading one's virtualization platform, the backup can be ruined. I know of people who do downgrade virtualization out of concerns for the success of a data center backup run. For me, personally, this does not present an issue as I am more conservative in how I conduct my administrative functions. 

Unfortunately, when one of my servers crashed, I instructed a colleague to delete the backup job, and he did. He accidentally deleted backup replication, however. I had nothing then. Both the backup and the original machine were deleted. We learned that there is no chance for recovery once the backup is deleted. They should make it possible to restore a replica in cases where it is accidentally deleted.

The restoration, reiteration, or snapshotting somehow is creating some sort of problem for us right now. I don't know, if it's the hardware's fault or a software issue, however, sometimes it takes a long time to delete a Snapshot. It can take anywhere from 30 minutes to two hours. They have to minimize the time of restoration that Snapshot is creating right now.

The patching can be quite difficult at times.

We try to make the backups run at off-peak times, however, sometimes something goes wrong and it doesn't back up as scheduled. 

Right now, replication it does in every 15 minutes. However, if it could do continuous replication or even bring it down to 5 minutes, then it would be great.

My main concern about Veeam is that I hope our backups will still be secure in the event of a security incident such as a ransomware attack. In Veeam version 11 they do state that there is ransomware protection, but until it has been proven to be effective, I don't have any assurance that it will prevent data loss.

Beyond improving on the security measures, I don't have further expectations for Veeam Backup and Replication.

We're using both Backup and Replication, Veeam Cloud Connect, and Veeam Office 365. What I am missing is a good graphical user interface between these three products. It's something that they need to figure out. I'd like the three versions streamlined so they fit together better, as, right now, they are very different.

Veeam Backup & Replication should include a cloud solution. 

The cost should also be adressed. This would bring up my rating from a seven to a ten out of ten. 

Restoration takes about two to four hours with Veeam. Zerto can restore in about 10 seconds. That's the restoration speed I'm looking for now that we're dealing with ransomware. This is one area where Zerto has an edge on Veeam.  However, both are easy to use. 

The only thing I would like to see from Veeam is a calculator for estimating the costs on all the different cloud providers. I don't think any product has this. So if I go into Azure versus AWS, it would be nice to have some way to calculate what I will end up paying. 

One thing I've noticed is that both cloud providers will say it's going to cost you X amount to do a backup, and it's simple to compare costs between them. But if you want to do a site recovery, it will cost more to start up all the servers you were backing up in that cloud. Even though one cloud provider might save you money on backup, your total costs will be higher when you factor in restoration. I want the transparency to say Azure is more cost-effective than AWS for backup, but Azure will cost you 2 percent more than the other one to provide that visibility to my client.

It is always nice to get products cheaper.

Even though the speed has improved over the years, I think that there are some instances where it still takes a while. In some cases, we have experienced fluctuations in performance. For example, yesterday we performed a synthetic full backup. Normally, this takes less than 90 minutes, but other times, it takes well more than six hours to get 40% of the way.

Other than that, I find that it does what is expected and maybe a bit more. I also don't think that I've really tapped into all of the features of it as yet.

In the future, I would like to see the product offer a full backup, virtual machines, and point systems as well as database and application power in the Veeam Backup. There needs to be more integration with VMware and the virtual machine.

For my client, bandwidth is a problem. We do not know the sizing of the environment and it's a problem in every RPO in the time of sizing. This is a big problem.

If the solution could offer a backup for SAN as part of its functionality, that would be a major advantage in comparison to other software companies. It is made for VMware. This is a specialty tool for VMware virtual machines. It would be ideal if it could also be for Veeam and you didn't have to leverage it via VMware. 

Standard version is poor - As you need to power Off/On virtual machines when backing up/Restoring where Enterprise edition you don't - If you have a big estate to manage stay away from Standard.

Physical backup is always where room for improvement could be but Veeam has always stated they are not going in that direction. However, with Veeam Endpoint Backup, physical server backup is possible.

It is efficient but can improve security-wise. 

Veeam Backup & Replication could improve by making it more user-friendly.

I'd like to have this kind of solution, but in the Cloud environment. I think there are other solutions that address the same requirements, like Commvault, which can be used easily in AWS on the S3 environment.

This VMotion feature is not mastered by any expert and we don't use it for replication. If we are migrating and relocating the primary site to another site, we do it in two steps. So at the primary site, we switch it with the backup and then vice versa. We then relocate it to another site. When we wanted to use VMotion to make the switch from the primary site to the backup site, there were some difficulties with it. It's not reliable enough to be 100% sure that there will be no failure in the operation.

I think Veeam needs to improve the file installation process, as well as more technical things like snapping feature issues. Sometimes during backup, when it's taking the scan snaps on the ESXi, it started and didn't remove the snapshot from there, which consumed storage on the EXSi. It could be improved with more technical depth. 

The response time for Veeam's technical support could also be improved. 

It would be useful if we could integrate our on-premise VM solution with the Azure workload backup from the existing console. This would assist our customers in reducing the cost of hardware. 

It would be good to have the option to store the data directly to Azure, AWS Cloud or any other cloud solutions. 

We would like to have cloud storage set up as a storage solution instead of local storage and have an integrated console for AWS, GCP and Amazon Azure workloads.

Scalability, as well as licensing costs, need to be improved.

I like the idea of a web-based version or a web console. That is the top priority for us.

They have an integration with MS SQL, and you have to license MS SQL. This is something they need to change. They should go for an open-source database or a free SQL because you're already buying this product, and you shouldn't have to buy another product.

They fixed everything that I was hoping for. It is pretty good. There were a few things in 9.x that I was wishing for, and they came true in version 10. We were looking for retention without having to make a copy job.

We're getting ready to migrate m365 to the cloud. I haven't dived into it to make sure, but I wish the m365 backup would integrate into the current console so that we don't have to use two different consoles.

I would like to have the capability of backing up a physical machine, as opposed to just a VM.

The most important improvement would be for it to be updated to support new servers and we actually are in a situation that we are going to connect our Exchange service to a new one. They have to actually support new software as they are released and I think Veeam has promised to support new Windows upgrades which is important .

If they had some more agents for physical computers, that would also be a nice feature.

I have also been struggling with the storage, and in some cases I need to move things due to performance. We can use replication and we hope that this will help us continue with Veeam.

I'm not sure if this option is available in new versions. But different types of licenses could not be used on the same Veeam server in the past, it would be good to be able to use mixed types of licenses in the same server.

I do have a need ever so small to have the ability to backup physical servers, this is not something Veeam offers.

The ease of use could be improved, but I don't have a very deep amount of experience in Veeam, so it's difficult to say what could be improved. 

Veeam should go for a different version of a hypervisor. For example, they are concentrating on Microsoft Hyper-V and on VMware. There are some virtualizations there, like AHV Nutanix. In that case, they need to rebuild application-wise. I checked with an AHV for my personal knowledge, and I couldn't find the same as in the VMware and Hyper-V. It's totally different. It opens with a different port.

They need to do some repository and improve the backup chain and logs. For example, sometimes we still need to call support for small things, and they're looking for the log. 

In this case, they need to give some training to the administrators. It should be easy. In this case, there are some knowledge bases. If you go to the Veeam site, you will see the knowledge bases, but there should be a little awareness. Administrator awareness should come up for that, like with the small issues and how you want to replicate. When you have some small issues, you should be able to go through it by yourself and solve the issue instead of opening the ticket and waiting for the engineers to troubleshoot.

The integration with other solutions should be improved.

I would like for them to develop the ability to fix the way it does backups. We can't pick a backup for one database. We have to do a backup on the whole Exchange VM. I'd like for them to change it to where we can do individual backups. 

I would like for it to work with Oracle VM. 

• Near-synchronous, better RPO and RTO snapshot-based takes a lot of space and resources.
• They could look at different ways to replicate only new changes or blocks.
• If we have to use Veeam for disaster recovery, we need to make sure that we can at least have up to 10 or 15 minutes of data before a disaster happens. Currently, you can have replication but this uses/eats up a lot of resources, on the network. Is there any other way they could increase RPO with less or limited network resources being used?

The cloud backups from Veeam Backup Replication have not been good. Addiotnaally, the backups of Office 365 and the overall performance can always be improved.

We struggled to stabilize the application. We had an incident which resulted in a loss of data and have terminated this solution due to lack of support from the Veeam team.

For us, it's important that the products can be adapted to different network scenarios. This is the biggest problem. The issues that we had when we selected the products were due to the specifics on the network from a security point of view. Security for us is the most important feature that we need to work with. THey need to ensure that it's possible to secure the network.

The initial setup is complex. 

We use several proxies, reverse proxies, due to our needs. It's not so common. There's not too much information and it's not so useful. They could develop it more and they could market it better. Not many users have this scenario. The reverse proxy, for us, was an important piece to implement. If a user has a good view of the reverse proxying during the implementation, it's better.

In terms of what could be improved, when creating a backup job with Veeam, you can create a daily backup, but it doesn't do it within that job. It does not give you the ability to also set the terms for monthly and/or weekly backups. It has to be a separate job. It gets clunky to manage the timeframes where you don't want a daily to run on this day and creating weeklies. And you don't want a daily to run on this day doing monthlies. That is hard to deal with. It would be really nice if you could do it through a single command line or a single interface.

It is called a father son, or grandfather, type backup structure. The retention periods are not consistent or not available for different retention periods within that job. Retention periods being daily, weekly, monthly.

As for what I would like to see in future releases, just the integration to other virtual environments. In our case, the Nutanix environment is incomplete with the enterprise manager recovery tools part of it. That's where it is incomplete on the Nutanix side as well on the ESX. On the VMware side, the ability to set your retention policy within a job over multiple periods would be really nice if that was doable.

They need full cloud integration such that an on-premises backup can be offloaded to the cloud for storage. It is my understanding that they are focusing on solidifying that now. Everybody wants to be able to integrate with the cloud.

Multithreading of health check process: This can take too much time to process on large jobs and/or large VMs. Better to have built-in deduplication for long-term retention. Storage efficiency is a weakness.

Additional executive summary reports for the entire infrastructure would be a nice to have.

Our VMware License is the Enterprise Plus with Operations Management. For this reason, we only rely on Veeam for backups and a few tests.

Most of our activities are done using VMware itself.

Veeam has more features than we actually use, for example, the virtual labs.

They could integrate Veeam with the storage centers, in order not to use the Veeam Backup Repository Servers anymore.

Part of the issue we've had is with the AIX backup. Currently, Veeam has issued version 2.0 for the AIX machine, however, it is not capable of taking the entire machine backup and restoring at the one side. It is only taking the backup of the partitions only. There is a limitation there right now. I'd suggest they improve the functionality in the Veeam Backup agent so that it will take an entire machine backup. That would be more beneficial for the official system for the AIX's.

The stability for AIX machines could be better.

Veeam Backup also needs to be possible in Azure, so that if something goes down Veeam can take care of everything. Our local vendor in India for the Azure environment has found out there is no availability for Azure for Veeam Backup and Replication. If there is an existing Veeam option that supports the Azure environment, they need to relay the message. It's not clear now and it appears there isn't one.

We'd love to see the solution offer more compression in the future to allow us to save more space. 

I think that Veeam could improve some performance issues when the backup itself is restored. I'm also using HPE StoreOnce, which has deduplication, and when I'm trying to test or run backups, it takes a lot of time. I think they could improve the testing for backup copies. 

Veeam Backup is not enhanced. There aren't any enhancements yet and they are still using traditional methods for snapshots and to perform the backup, like many other vendors. I've noticed this has an impact on the performance. We run hundreds or thousands of VM backups in the same night. Most software don't have a SMAC algorithm to schedule the backup and improve performance for the production environment. They just randomly create. In order to perform big backups at one time, we have to invest in storage. 

Another improvement would be simplifying and integrating their software. I have one app for VM backups, another for file backups, and another for implications, so I have to implement three platforms in one organization. This is quite difficult. The implementation process could be simplified, in regard to VM files and replication. 

The solution is pretty much the same as a solution such as Comet, however, the only difference is that this is a bit weaker and not so strong at covering the applications and the physical servers side.

This solution is very young and they don't have a lot of references. 

For physical servers and some applications like SAP and databases, they're less good.

It's not quite as secure as Comet.

The pricing could be better.

The implementation of the features can be improved. Currently, there is no segregation of duty. Normally, any backup software or client service software is implemented in a way where one person is responsible for the implementation of the server, and one is responsible for the client, but Veeam Backup & Replication is not implemented in that way. Therefore, restores don't work like that. The backup guys have to do the restores, which is not a good thing.

Its pricing should also be improved. It is quite expensive.

Veeam Backup Replication has agents for Linux, but they are not supporting Cluster Shared Volumes. It would be great to have agents for Linux be cluster-aware, just like the Windows agents. That's the main pain point.

In addition, we should be able to handle the automation of Oracle backups from the backup server. We should be able to schedule, control, and deploy them from the backup server rather than relying on scripts and/or the system you are backing up to perform the backup. Currently, we install the plug-in inside Oracle VMs and then use crontabs to handle the task schedule on each machine for scheduling the backups. Veeam Backup Replication should also support the automation of Nutanix backups from the backup server, not from the proxy.

The other not so major thing is that they don't support legacy systems because Veeam is a new company. It is not as old as other companies. They don't support physical workloads that are really old, which a major challenge, but they do have a point. Legacy systems should be virtualized, and if they're virtualized, then the backup is not an issue with Veeam, but some customers like the physical setup, and they don't want to have it virtual.

The product is missing some commonsense features and tools for an enterprise backup recovery product, but it is reliable, fairly resilient, and works. 

I do not like how Veeam's software is dependent on a remote database which relies on the architecture that Veeam is protecting. HA for SQL (Veeam's database) is not really supported. I have been there, and done that. This leads to jobs corrupted, chains broken, etc. 

• Being able to Backup from Cloud Services like Azure
• Better Logging to assist you in determining root causes of failures
• Better Traffic Throttle Monitoring

Cost. At the time this was one of the most expensive backup software available. Compared to StorageCraft that was more than half the cost for a virtual machine agent.

The performance is slow when making changes. I am unable to determine if the cause is slow disk that we use for our storage, of if Veeam is slow. When I delete a VM in Veeam it takes about 20 minutes to delete the backups with 83 restore points. With that being said we are getting the “Speed Boost” upgrade that should improve performance. With this being said, the program performs very quick when navigating around the UI. One issue I have ran into is I have been confused at times and added the same VM to multiple backup jobs. I wish there was a “warning” box that would pop up saying this vm is already protected in another job.

In terms of what could be improved, I would say the manageability but not that much else.

In the next release I would like to see a bit more intelligence as far as a solution or troubleshooting - to put it more on the level of resolution and not simply identifying there is a problem.

Backup speed should be increased, and there should be more functionality.

Veeam's configuration is very complex in my opinion. I believe a more simplified configuration would be beneficial.

I find this product to be rather weak when it comes to database integration and that really is problematic. It needs to have better integration with the database components as well as the cloud-based services.

When you want to restore files, you first need to restore the machine, and then you have to mount it, and then restore the files. I wish it were like Symantec, where I can search for a file and it will give me the latest version, no matter where it is. It could be on tape or on disk, and it still restores the latest version.

I have a problem with the VM. When we started doing a backup, it takes a snapshot for our virtual machines, but when we try it two or three times, in some cases, our virtual machines go to a consolidated state. I don't know why this problem happens. But I still think Veeam is a top-ranking solution.

I don't know why this VM problem happens. Sometimes, I think it's because of our environments and performance. I have a little bit of a performance problem when VMs back up. I don't think it's optimized in our environment because of that. 

It doesn't have any reporting in it. The reporting and GUI interface can be improved. 

There are some features that are lacking compared to other backup solutions, specifically around the use of tape libraries, and this is the largest area for improvement. As it is a fairly new feature, I do fully expect improvement in the future as they continue to refine the ability to backup servers to tape media.

For additional features, I'd say having integration backup through hybrid cloud.

I'd like to see better training offered online. 

Their licensing model could use some improvement. In the version we're using, they license per core and up to six cores, so you can't use the one for small business anymore. You have to upgrade to the enterprise carry-on, it's a bit ridiculous.

I'd like to see more flexible licensing or to be consumed as a service.

The recovery and integration features of Veeam Backup Replication could improve. For example, all VM integration could improve, such as with Hyper-V and VMware.

There is not any kind of archiving feature that is provided and in a future release, there should be an archiving feature in this platform. They would be better able to compete with the other archiving solution. In the current scenario, if the customer wants to have an archiving feature, they will have to purchase another solution because we cannot have this archiving feature with Veeam Backup Replication.

I would like them to move back to host licensing.

Everything should improve over time as new functionalities come along. The product needs to follow new technologies and integrate them.

I would like to see the licensing model improved. They have recently changed the model and have made it more complicated.

One thing that is always requested by the customers is to have new functionalities integrated very rapidly into the product. There are always new features that we must integrate. The market is pushing very hard to have new functionalities.

Right now, for example, there is a very high demand for protection against ransomware, and we want to integrate the data immutability features in Veeam and integration with HPE products.

For example, in the case of Veeam, they have many other partners. They have Dell. They have Pure Storage. They have NetApp also. For the engineering of Veeam, it's not very easy to integrate the features of all the third-party partners. I can say that the relationship between Veeam and HPE is very strong. We are working on 10 projects. Half of the backup projects that we have with Veeam most of the time.

There are certain solutions, such as Rubrik and Cohesity, that are little by little, taking market share. Veeam needs to be more aggressive to keep their dominance in the space.

Veeam Backup Replication could improve by having better integration with the cloud. Additionally, they do not have direct integration to S3 or Azure storage for the backups of the VMs. This feature would be beneficial because we have to go through the scalable repository which I do not like. 

I think backing up from physical servers and ransomware security needs some improvements. However, they have improved in the newer release by encrypting the backup server.

In upcoming releases, I do not want the UI to change, this is important for individuals using the solution. If there are many changes then they have to keep learning the UI over and over again making it difficult.

The price can be better.

Veeam Backup and Replication is a very good product, but there's room for improvement. For example, if you have to set up multiple servers, there's a lot of work to configure and set up projects. But once it's set up, it's very easy to manage. I think you have to resize it in the data center, and then it's pretty simple. We can integrate the storage, and you can use data resizing and do a lot more.

The reporting feature can also be improved. Version 10 has come up with a better report, but version 9.4 isn't so good. I mean, it doesn't show whether we can allow customization of reports and more.

It would be ideal if users could know that their data is backed up and have some security functionality where you can actually use the backup to spin up a new cluster and take it from there. 

If they can create a virtual environment with the traffic environment that would be beneficial.

The direct SAN backup integration can be perfected by improving the snapshot removal mechanism and process from the storage volumes. This will prevent stale snapshots from accumulating on the data stores, which in turn consumes precious space.

We would like to see a product that supports Linux, however, we believe that this support is already in the works.

Moving backup repositories and merging backup chains is either difficult or not possible as far as I know in the current release of Veeam Backup and Replication. This has made it inefficient to retire backup storage repositories, causing us to keep more backup files than we might otherwise do. This means we are wasting space simply to keep a backup for archive purposes, and I can see this being addressed with scale-out repositories in the future.

• Compression rates could be improved for moving thousands of machines at a time.
• There was a small glitch that was resolved with a call to tech support.
• Can't perform replication without creating snapshots, which takes up all the space in VM, so I must do so with physical machines.

Tape support is there, but needs improvement. Netvault beats in that area. But most of our backups are to disk then to tape; but also copy to disk DR (in development). Reporting is lacking unless you get additional product. Very basic reporting. This would an easy area to improve upon.

No product is 100% and there is always room for improvement. One of the downsides to Veeam is that it's just software-based. In the future, Veeam should release a hardware backup appliance that can be integrated with their software.

Better integration with other products would be an improvement.

All our customers would like a cheaper license and more flexible deployment

They need to improve their technical side. They don't have a lot of compatibility with Solar HP-UX, IX, or SAP. They still need to have a lot of improvement in that area.

They need to make their Office 365 backup is included in one console with the backup replication. It will be easier that way and place it in line with the Veritas NetBackup offering.

The solution could improve by having more user-friendly dashboards.

Our customers seem to be quite happy with the solution. I cannot recall coming across any features that were lacking.

We were waiting for two years for the continuous data protection features and it was released with this last version in February. And in v11 there are so much improvements made. They all are useful. There is no other feature request from our side. While continuing to use v11, additional requests may of course occur.

Improve compatibility with the database systems such as Oracle, PostgreSQL, and MySQL, and increase the number of compatible disk systems for the snapshot functionality.

They need to address the confusing recovery dialogue. When you go through the recovery of just a single file within a VM you select the file recovery type and then after selecting a point in time you are presented with a “Finish” button. It’s not clear that no existing files would be overwritten nor affected which can be especially stressful when the VM is live. A change to this dialogue would be welcomed.

The product is really awesome for the virtualized environment – hands down. It really lives up to its motto – it just works. One caveat – those physical servers that are still outliers. We are constantly hearing that our customers would be “SOLD” if there was a solid physical server solution. To their credit – I know they are working hard to provide a solution that meets these needs. And candidly, I want them to take their time and develop, test and deploy a solution that works as reliably as the current product.

I have asked Veeam to consider backing up physical devices for years and each time the response was “that’s not what we do”. As a result, they missed many opportunities to sell their products to customers who have a mixture of virtual and physical devices but don’t want to support multiple backup products. Veeam finally started down that path but they are taking their time to get the Endpoint Protection fully developed and rolled into the main product. They need to ramp this up and then I believe they would see even better adoption.

I really cannot think of any areas that stand out as needing improvement right now, to be honest.

The product has a great value for money and I'm happy to see they're still adding more features. I hope they can keep the setup as simple as possible as this is one of the strengths of the product.

Performance of the replica when booting during an emergency. Only a few critical systems can be booted this way due to the loads on secondary storage appliances. This isn't really a problem, more of a limitation of the hardware devices we used for implementation.

It's sometimes difficult identifying the resources for backup and I think that could be improved. I'd also like to see more detailed reporting. 

While the Veeam Backup Replication tool can mostly back up all the data in the environment, the AIX from IBM backup capabilities nowadays could stand improvement as they are not featured on a single pane of glass. A consultation is required for its administration. As such, the integration of AIX would be welcome. 

While Veeam Backup & Replication is a complete solution, it would be nice to have the Veeam server on Linux. The availability of the Server Manager only on Windows installation should be addressed.  

Overall, it's a great technology; it's a great product. But Veeam has always been dedicated to the virtual environment — mostly the Intel virtual environment. In our market, the Italian market, there are many companies that have legacy environments that need to be backed up, and sometimes Veeam is not that effective when it comes to legacy environments.

I only ever found one error. It was when we were doing a file copy job. After using it for ten minutes, it would slow down and cause a bottleneck error. 

It would be ideal if the product can reduce the number of errors we received. 

The backup of the device could be improved and it's also quite an expensive solution, more expensive than Acronis. 

If a single file is corrupt then the restoration of the entire backup will fail. This type of dependency is a problem.

I would like to see some customized backup functions that allow the end-users to make copies of files.

I think user support can be more analytic. Some support replies for a broken backup task have been "rebuild the job from scratch" and this is a bad thing to do if you have many VMs and repositories.

Unfortunately, the software only runs on Windows and can't take backups of Linux or other operating systems. It would be helpful if it would run on Linux. There are also some issues with support response times. 

The deployment process can be quite complex. 

I can't speak to any features that are missing. It has everything we need.

If you upgrade too quickly, you may have issues. 

Technical support could be better.

The only thing which was lacking was the support, some years back, for the cloud connect. It's matured now and has become a very reliable product.

I would like to have is better documentation. Veeam documentation is something that needs to be worked on. The training program is very good, however, they need to have better work documentation.

Also, very few third parties have courses on Veeam. Veeam only provides co-courses. For example, everybody has got courses about Cisco or Microsoft. Veeam is very closed on that factor. If they want to really popularize the software, they need to have more training, and the training should be more widely available via third parties.

The cost is a hindrance towards learning for certifying in Veeam. They need to make it more open and less expensive to open it up for more companies and users.

On individual user backups, there are certain people who have got individual PCs and they have data on them. Veeam is not up to that mark. There is other software we use which is much better than Veeam when it comes to individual data protection. I would like to have them come up with more robust features when it comes to individual endpoint protection.

An area for improvement would be the product's high use of resources and memory.

The deduplication feature could be improved by changing to global deduplication. I am also concerned about the master server landing on Microsoft Windows only, which means that if there is a ransom attack on the Veeam server, all the backup features will go down, and the data will be lost.

The Veeam backup application interface is application-based and not web-based. At present, everything is going web-based. Veeam does have a web interface that can centrally manage Veeam backup servers for free. However, it would be great if the backup console itself was web-based; that is, the main backup applications software was web-based.

It's a Windows-based software, but it would be great if customers could install it on Linux. Veeam can do backups of Linux, but the management server can only be installed on Windows.

Better support for Oracle would be great. Veeam Plug-in for Oracle RMAN is available, but it's a really primitive product.

I would like to see the Veeam cloud solution and Microsoft Office 365 included all in one platform.

I've always found recovery speed to be its downfall.  If you have a very large machine (1TB+) I would not recommend Veeam be the primary recovery product because of the amount of time it would take to recover if you had to do full recovery.  It can absolutely do the job, but I  suggest augmenting Veeam with a solution that can recover more quickly, which would most likely be storage snapshot based.

Physical workload protection and item level recovery for Linux-based systems.

Archive to tape could be better, but the new version might do this, and generally it’s a great product. The landing disk cliff shares could be improved. I don’t believe that it supports it at this time. If you use the edit job function you can’t sort by VM product.

Not sure, but maybe the weakest area is around integration with tape libraries at times.

Nothing in particular, Veeam launches like a rocket and delves into the featurelist of VMware, for example, and tie their development close together with the devs coming from VMware or Microsoft.

It would be nice to be able to backup data to two locations.

I feel the price is a bit high

We encountered a ransomware virus issue, after which we made the environment so that the Veeam server is not in a domain, but a local one, and this helped us resolve the issue. As such, Veeam should state that it's best to have the Veeam server in a non-domain environment, for the preventing of any ransomware issues, with local authentication instead.  

When in a domain, the virus can easily attack the Veeam server, something which happened to us. Even our own antivirus solution - whose name I wish to withhold - failed to detect this. Ultimately, we had to go for the Microsoft scanner, which actually helped us to rid ourselves of the virus. 

While Veeam does provide the latest patches, it states that it is even fine to have a non-domain environment. It should have that frontline statement that the Veeam server should not be part of a domain for best anti-ransomware practices. 

The replication functionality only works for VMware environments. Veeam has a backup agent for AIX operating systems, and we will like to see the replication functionality available for the AIX operating system. Additionally, if the backup functionality for AIX to be included in the Veeam console would be an advantage.

Integration with the other equipment could be improved. For example, Tape Autoloader integrating with other storage products that are customized for backup solutions, or EMC Data Domain integrating with NetApp storage. Backup solutions today have a critical role in many data centers. We face a lot of malware attacks and ransomware. I think backup solutions are critical and this backup solution should be flexible. 

It would be great to work with other solutions and new technologies like Kubernetes, or Docker integrating with private cloud solutions such as Azure, Google, or OpenStack. Veeam is not as efficient as Veritas NetBackup. 

The solution is too expensive. While I feel the DR component to be very straightforward and simple, I have been informed by management that it is overly expensive, although I do not have the full financial information at my disposal to verify this on my own. 

The DR component should be part of the comprehensive package, not separate.

Ransomware attacks present an issue. Veeam should make it clear that the server needs to be out of the domain when it comes to ensuring that there is no ransomware attack or security breach. This is an issue of primary importance. An ex-colleague of mine told me that when a ransomware attack occurred, the re-set team, which dealt with a similar Veeam setup, ensured that the server was not part of the domain. Specifying that the server must be out of the domain will ensure that no ransomware attacks will occur. This needs to be locally authenticated. 

I just started working with version 11 in January and I am still looking at the changes. I haven't come across areas of the solution that are lacking just yet. I still need to explore it more.

Although the solution offers documentation, it has it only in English, which doesn't help us much in Belarus. It would be much more helpful if they provided their documentation in multiple languages.

The backup jobs and the scheduled tuning are not as convenient as compared to a solution such as Data Protector. They should work on these aspects to make them more convenient.

Veeam can not do some backup jobs. yOu can only arrange it on a daily basis and no more than that. You can't, for example, do a backup twice in one day, even if you need to.  

They can improve the features and Veeam Enterprise Manager. The interface and features are kind of limited. It would be good if they can provide more features and a better interface. For example, if I want to provide certain users with the privilege to back up and restore and do day-to-day tasks, I cannot do it in the current version. It is like you either give everything to everyone or no user can have access to anything.

In version 9, a lot of features were missing, and it wasn't clear. Version 10 is easier from the communication perspective, and the disk backup option is very clear.

Determining the space for the WAN acceleration server sometimes is hard, especially if you have many source sites for the data. I would like to have a kind of storage space calculator that gives me an estimate for the size of the WAN accelerator server we are creating; give it a list of VMs to be backed up.

I am requesting this because the standard rules in the Veeam End User Guide often resulted in us making a wrong calculation, especially for the target WAN acceleration machine. The result was many failed backups due to "no more space" errors! And creating a VM that is "too big” wastes precious space (the opposite of what we want to achieve).

The software really needs to expand into physical machines backups. Endpoint Protection is a good start, but physical backups are the missing component to crush the competition.

By default, I use “Enable parallel processing” which is great to have multiple jobs run at the same time. I would like the option to disable this within the Backup Job so certain jobs run sequentially instead. Reason being, I may have an application that runs on several different VMs that I would like to keep in a single Backup Job, but if they backup at the same time such as the app server and SQL server, it causes spikes in the application. The only way around this is to create separate backup jobs scheduled to run at different times.

Better reporting of replication job details in order to provide better insights when troubleshooting.

The product works perfectly for us. After they added endpoint backup for physical servers the product is 10/10.

Two months ago, I would have said the integration of Veeam Endpoint Backup with Veeam B&R, but this is covered by now with Veeam 8 U2. The feature that a few customers are waiting is SharePoint item restores via redirected SQL, instead of having to install a staging SQL instance on the Veeam B&R backup server.

Backup compression. It has got better but still could improve somewhat.

The main area for improvement has come in Version 8, that is native support for tape drives and the ability to archive to tape. Although Veeam B&R v7 allows you to back up your virtual servers to disks. You still need to archive those backups to tapes for long-term storage. Veeam did not provide this facility in earlier versions so we currently use Symantec backup for archiving the "restore points" for long -term storage

I'd like to see better compression of the backups.

Veeam currently lacks features for backing up to network-attached storage. Veeam Backup & Replication agents do not support S3 storage. Only Veeam Backup & Replication server supports S3 storage. 

I would like to see more broad support for other applications such as databases, or other operating systems. Veeam is currently developing some of these features but they are not as mature as those found on backup products for physical servers. Essentially, integration with products from other vendors should be improved.

This product should be integrated with Kasten for Kubernetes backup. It would be helpful for backing up a container environment.

I would like a solution for SAP systems to be included in the next release.

It's hard to answer because managing cloud storage in our version could be better, but now that they have improved it in the recent version, I cannot say it's a better point because I know it should be already fixed.

My point of view is not general but in particular because I can only tell you about the things that we need. For the things that we need, I mostly SQL backup, we have no issues with Veeam Backup & Replication. It's difficult to answer because I am waiting to try new features in the next version that we plan to install next month. So, I can't answer before I try these additional features that I will find in the next version.

I think that the web interface could be more visual. Also, when I was initially evaluating the solution, I had trouble finding detailed information about it and I think that could be improved too. 

Sometimes, when we shut it down, it doesn't properly shut down for us.

If we need to back it up, would be even better if we could do a backup when the files are open and the applications are working. If the solution itself had that capability to backup everything consistently, across all the files, across the system just as we are using the product, then it would have huge benefits, even more than it has today. It would mean that I would not need to purchase any other party third-party products to ensure that my application or my database will work after I back it up and start it up. 

It would be ideal if they could capture everything and then timestamp and back up everything up to that timestamp. Then I would not need other products and I could just use this, which would be better.

The whole graphical user interface is very easy, but the details are hidden deeply and aren't easily visible. You cannot easily see the details and explore or choose the settings. We should be able to easily explore various settings and options. If you can see more details while choosing the settings or setting it up, it helps in getting the software running easily. For example, in Microsoft Office, you can see much more in the interface than in Veeam Backup & Replication. 

It is a complex software. It is not easy to use, and you must know what to do and where to do. The user manual has more than a thousand pages. They should give some direct information through the software and improve the software. On their website, they can have some videos and step-by-step information to make us come straight to our goals.

Provide more integration for cloud providers such as Google Cloud, Azure and AWS.

Client/agent for non-virtualized servers: This can be improved by integrating them in the same way as the virtual servers and integrating them into the same backup jobs. Actually, the Veeam team recommends making separate jobs for these servers. The options of the job are not the same if it’s a VM or a physical server.

The best solution is to have the same functionality for a virtual or a physical server.

I have already discussed this point with a member of the Veeam development and he replied to me that it will be improved in Version10. We are waiting ;-)

The updates of this product are very fast and they always improve the solution.

We would like to have the ability to perform more things on the web interface. The heavy client is still needed to perform advanced tasks.

• Remote management console
• Physical server backups

None since the release of endpoint backup management.

There are some PowerShell scripts for Veeam, but the product could be improved if they wrote more PowerShell scripts for controlling Veeam.

There is some complexity we have experienced when using the solution that should be simplified.

In terms of what can be improved, I would say they could add automations for disaster migrations and for reverse replications. Overall, they need more automation.

I like the Acronis backup solutions on the block-based part of backups or snapshots. That's a nice functionality that Veeam doesn't have. 

As far as additional features, in the comparative market, a lot of solutions are now from VMware. Cisco has its own solution for replicating back-ups and administration. 

We try to compare Veeam with other solutions because we are the operations. Then we can give the answers for improvement which is the specific additional system features that other solutions provide.

I would like to see a storage application in the next version of the product. 

I am looking for the ability to:

• Backup physical machines
• Backup exchange mailboxes and retrieve a message in a mailbox
• Backup SQL servers and retrieve a record in a table
• Backup the Active Directory and retrieve a single object

Cross job deduplication and dedupe across full backups would be interesting. This would help the backup footprint for long term backups. Saying that, Server 2016 dedup (when it's released shortly) should cover some of this for small to medium sites, and larger sites can pick a number of appliances to do the job (Dell DR4300, ExaGrid Storage, EMC Data Domain etc.).

The endpoint(agent) backup to be fully included/supported as part of the licensed product.

Update: this functionality should be included sometime between Q4 2016 - Q1 2017

I'd like to see more vendors added for the new array-based backup platform. More IT shops will be able to take advantage of this new backup technology. Using the native VADP snapshot functionality can stress out the VMware kernel.

It still doesn't feel like a fully mature solution because it's not exactly ready for very large scale and complex environments with more than 1000 VMs.

• Tape support - more options for retention
• Backup for physical servers (Microsoft at least)

This product is for virtual environments only. Which means it cannot backup physical servers. Most, but not all, software support VMWare and VMWare environments but on the rare occasion (like with us) when a vendor requires a physical machine to operate, it means we have to have a different backup process.

"Veeam Vpower Technology" is the area of this product that is open for improvement.

The solution needs to have the capacity to address more legacy workloads. For example, things like integration with tapes.

The initial setup can get complex. 

The only improvement I could think of is it could be cheaper—cheaper is always good. Sometimes the product is just finished. Cheaper is always nice for the customer, but the company needs to benefit so that they can keep maintaining the product. New Windows versions, etc., always take some work. At the moment, I wouldn't switch to another solution because of the money. 

The tech support could be better. I rate it as a six out of ten. Though this is not frequent, when we have had need to resort to it, we found it to not be good. 

There is always some room for improvement, especially with some of the different technologies such as DB2. Commvault has a DB2 agent, but Veeam still doesn't have it. We have to use the universal one for it.

Although this is not really something that comes too much from the Veeam side, there could be more integration with the storage for snapshots. I know that some products that we use would need it, but I think that also comes more from the storage suppliers.

While we used the cloud and on-premises deployment models, on the cloud we found we had some issues and we moved to everything on-premises to counteract that.

The solution needs to fix its incremental sizing. Currently, we are facing an issue with the incremental backup. For example, with a normal user laptop, it is taking a huge amount of incremental backup on a daily basis - more than two, three DBS it is taking place on a daily basis. Much improvement is needed. Though the compression rate is good, what exactly they are backing up on daily basis for such a great extent is unresolved. We want to understand why this is happening.

The stability could be better, specifically in the cloud. We had bad experiences with the cloud. We were using Azure and we found some security issues in terms of ransomware. We relied on the cloud backup, however, the data in the cloud ended up also getting corrupted due to the ransomware. Data security is a huge concern on the cloud, in our experience. 

The scalability could be more effective.

Technical support can be improved. Cloud backup could also be better. It would be better if there were an option to back up and then manually attach to storage. It's possible on-premises, but this isn't possible on the cloud. 

It's a great product, but only if you have everything virtualized. If you still have non-virtualized environments, then it's not treatable for customers who have some products we can not virtualize. For example, another service, or if you have Oracle or other databases, then it's not treatable for those environments.

Some of the best practice documentation could be improved.

It would be nice if it could be integrated with third-party solutions like ours. It has been supporting just Windows and virtual machines.

The orchestration feature can be improved. They can improve the virtual machine orchestration to make it similar to VMware. They can also provide an option to automate the backup and recovery and schedule a backup.

Below, you’ll find various suggestions from both my admins and myself that would improve Veeam Backup

• Built in upload to external storage. Using apps like Cloudberry, even though it can be automated, just adds unnecessarily complexity and one more point to break
• Integrated and intuitive orphaned snapshot management. When things go wrong during backups, you can be left with orphaned snapshots consuming more space on your storage than is immediately visible. This can be very problematic under certain conditions. Integrated visibility into this would be very helpful in these cases.
• Ability to shrink VRB files as servers are removed from jobs
• Ability to reconnect VRB’s in the chain
• Ability to attach and backup physical servers
• Better visibility of deduplication percentages

Although this product is technically designed for virtual environments, it would be very useful if the same concepts or technology is applied to backup physical servers. 

That is what I would love to see Veeam implement or add as a feature to a future product. 

Everyday technology needs updates, patches, replacements. The challenge for us is to have resources up to date so that our skills and technical knowledge are up-to-date. Such is the case with all products, so it is as well with Veeam Backup.

Managing snapshots during the backup.

Physical servers backup should be improved in the product.

An additional feature I'd like to see would be more cloud solutions. They need to focus more on cloud backup.

For the moment we do not necessarily need an improvement in the solution. The solution responds to our needs.

The price can be a bit expensive. 

We have had problems with some jobs. For example, when we have a VM with a large SQL Database, sometimes we cannot adjust the time for transaction logs to back up and overlap time.

The user interface needs to be improved. It could be simpler to use.

The price is an issue. If one has a large number of servers, say... 100-plus, and wishes to add more, an exhausted budget may hinder this ability. This is the only issue of note. 

The virtual sandboxes seem complex to setup so I have not invested time in leveraging this feature. It would be nice if this feature was more user-friendly.

Room for improvement is actually more in the way of licensing. The really good and useful features are in the Enterprise plus edition, and that one is really expensive. I've had customers shying away from Veeam because of the price tag attached to the version they really wanted. For one host with 2 CPUs (very common these days) Enterprise Plus costs $1900, and we are talking about virtualisation hosts so there will be a couple of them.

Now that Veeam has announced new versions and features I fear the price will go up even more.

The physical server backups and direct storage connectivity need improvement.

Since this is a pure 95 % virtualized solution for Hyper-V or vSphere, this product could do more to backup individual files, databases, and or complete guest OS. For now, I have to backup NAS, and doing this for individual files is a pain in the neck and I have to play with two different backup solutions. Also, Veeam will not backup a physical server.

I am expecting better support for physical tape copy. Support for backing up physical servers from the open area such as Windows and Linux servers with bare-metal restore functionality needs improvement. Support for the NDMP protocol for the several NAS devices.

Support for physical servers. Although we are continuing to virtualize all of our servers; there are, at this time, a few physical servers in our organization. They must be backed up as well. Currently, we have to use another vendor to backup these servers.

There is always scope for improvement (in fact with the v8 version there will be improvements in fact!), But already it is great!

Speed and more management.

None that I can think of.

1. Integration with Storage Array.
2. Incremental restore.
3. Improve the support of physical servers and bare metal recovery.

The ability to back up physical servers from within the same Product and not as a separate module. This would keep Veeam in the front of other competing products that offer both physical and virtual backup solutions.

Most of the features I wanted was addressed in version 6 and 7 (i.e. backup to tape) allowing my clients to finally get rid of backup Exec to copy backups to tape. I'm not sure if there's a way to back up physical servers with Veeam but that would be a good feature to help customers transition into a fully virtualized environment OR maintain some physical servers in the environment.

I never run into any stability issues with Veeam. It's almost too good to be true. I setup my jobs, run them, get the e-mail that they are finished and done. Veeam has never failed me.

The product is still limited in terms of support for environments other than VMware or Microsoft.

I'd like to see the pricing improved, it's currently an expensive solution. 

Azure Cloud version support requires improvement. The on-premises is doing well.

I don't think that it is really ready. 

Ideally, the cloud version and the on-premises version can be managed through the same interface, but that is not the case with their cloud-native implementation. The cloud-native solution is completely disconnected from the on-premise solution. This is an area that needs to improve.

When we started to talk to them about the cloud, we were under the impression that it's was going to be the same console, and everything would be the same, but that is not the case.

The cloud offering as a SaaS and the integration with the cloud providers. We work with Azure, and I think they need better integration with Azure. 

Also, the consolidation between the on-premises solution and those going to the cloud should have the same user experience. That will allow them to manage two environments in the same place. That would be a very good feature to offer, and it would be helpful. 

If they could offer that feature it would probably put them ahead of their competitors.

The Cloud version is not ready, they need maturity and ease of deployment in terms of management.

We would like to see support for some additional storage systems. They do have a range available but more should be available.

The cost of this solution could be reduced.

I think that the tech support could be improved a bit.

Offering mobile apps that give engineers a global view of his backup regime would be a "nice to have" feature.

We expect to see more integrations from the software company with storage vendors. Especially on dedupe appliances and non unified storage arrays. This will help us to cut down the storage investment cost and have more flexibility on hardware choices. Also, there are demands to protect data on end user computers and devices. Hope to see more update in this area in near future.

For now we’re pretty happy, but we’d like the ability to schedule.

Also, the configuration and fine tuning of the Fibre Channel based off host proxy where we leverage the SAN hardware VSS provider took some work and effort.

Direct SAN to SAN replication – it didn’t integrate well with the 3PAR SAN that we had.

File recovery could be better.

Being able to do both VMware & Hyper-V backups at the same time. At the moment, as far as I know, you can only do one or the other.

A backup and replication solution should be able to back up a system and do recovery very fast. Even though Veeam Backup & Replication is able to meet most of our needs, it would be better if they can make it faster for backup and restore. 

Veeam doesn't have the reporting part quite right. Its data visualization isn't as slick as other solutions like Veritas. For example, in Veritas, you can see a calendar that shows you which days are backed up. Veeam lacks features like that.

The automation could be better. 

Automation is also available, but one customer recently requested a few types of automation that were not yet available, but they are working on it.

It is not 100 percent successful. POCs are being developed by a travel agency in Mumbai, and they are currently being improved.

In terms of automation, I believe they are adequate but not flawless. You can rate it a 3, or 4.

The infrastructure required for installation is still quite expensive. Even the deduplication part, which they promise up to 50%, you get 60, 70, or even 80% somewhere, but they promise 50%. If you specifically compare them to the data domain or some application appliances, you can say deduplication is not that mature. But, in a normal scenario, it is fine.

The support could be improved.

Veeam Backup Replication could improve by having more comparably with other hardware with the immutable copy feature.

I have experienced problems with the backup repository.

The replication process is very slow. It takes too long to replicate a virtual machine.

The solution could be improved with easier immutability.

At this point, my only complaint is about the licensing costs. We have not experienced any technical problems.

In the future, I would like to see better support for direct backup to tape.

• Support for HPE catalyst copy and cloud bank
• It could also improve on its cloud tier, to tier data to the cloud once it is backed up.

In Linux, I suggest you backup for a PostgreSQL database.

The only real issues that I’ve had have been navigating the user interface particularly with restores. I feel that more attention could be paid attention to the restore interface. It’s just not as intuitive or fluid as it could be.

A different kind of scheduling. We would like to do backup twice a day.

I can't think of any.

Currently VEEAM doesnt back up VMs with physical raw device mappings.

Licensing cost model/ Faster data transfer rates from SSD Drive Datastores and Faster cancellation of a Job if done, sometimes you need to reboot your veeam server because the job is stuck upon cancelling, this is all I can think of. There were some initial issues with ports communication when used with Microsoft HyperV 2012/2012 R2, but now with this stable release of Veeam software, issues have been eliminated.

On one hand, Veeam Backup is very good at usability, but on the other hand, you have a solution that requires a lot of servers to be deployed, so you have different roles and components that you have to implement in an environment. Sometimes when you have to grow the environment, Veeam Backup requires a lot of resources to get implemented. You'll need several servers and several components deployed on a distributed environment. That is not the case with other tools and solutions that only require one server to get it right, so I think that requires some room for improvement.

Also, the capabilities to identify a problem within the tools are not great. Sometimes logging the information from the product does not give you the information needed to troubleshoot a problem, and that could be an issue for you because you have no tools to get that information. There are no error codes that you can refer to, only the descriptions, and that can make the troubleshooting process difficult. You'll end up creating a ticket with the support area just to help you to identify and interpret the logs, which you should be able to do on your own.

What I would like to see implemented in the future for Veeam Backup, would be the reporting tool that is not only on the enterprise, which is the most expensive licensing. So I'd like to have a decent reporting tool within the basic edition of the product, and not only on the most expensive one. I think that is the most important thing that is lacking feedback at this moment because it's a pretty strong solution overall.

The Veeam portal should be better integrated with all the parts of the new release. But there's always a workaround to replicate the new solution. I'd like to have better integration with other solutions like SAP.

The parallel backup process from the Veeam server to Veeam has some limitations. The number of parallel backups should be increased and the compressional is very low. Sometimes it is half or one-third, but other backup solutions' compression levels are very high.

I like the Acronis backup solutions on the block-based part of backups. That is a functionality that Veeam does not provide. 

Otherwise, I don't see any additional improvements in Veeam because they are very good. It integrates very well with Microsoft applications. Veeam is very user friendly and you don't need to have certifications to work on it.

The physical system support needs improvement. I know that the latest version has this feature, but it was too late as I am already using it for three years. For the time being, I have used another backup software (EMC NetWorker) and they seem to catch up a lot during the past few years.

They have to expand their operations for the physical environment.

We would like the ability to backup physical servers. Most organizations still have some of their applications and services running on physical hardware and do not want to deal with multiple backup solutions.

They still don’t have a plugin for use with EMC Data Domain. All else is fantastic.

More APIs with storage from different vendors.

I would prefer it if the backup console did not require use of a specified program, but rather that it could be opened from any website.

I don't see much room for improvement except that the price could be better. 

Its licensing needs to be improved. Its licensing has become complex since last December. They have changed the way the product is licensed, and there is a lot of confusion.

Sometimes, when a new version comes, it seems that it has not been tested enough because I usually find some bugs in it. 

It could also have more integration with other virtualization products, such as desktop virtualization products and open-source virtualization products.

I would like to see the ability to backup to cloud service providers such as Azure.

With each new release, this product breaks barriers. We expect to see this completely replace the entire backup solution landscape (supports virtual/non-virtual backup and DR solutions) for heterogeneous environment.

It’s always difficult, complex and expensive to keep different data protection solutions for different systems (physical servers, virtual servers, Windows/non-Windows environments, disaster recovery solution, end-point backup solution, media manager, dedupe box, etc.).

I'm not sure if others has the same issue as mine but the full recovery file (.VBK) growth is really causing our customer a headache as they have to perform a full backup, and when the disk capacity is getting low, you have to clear the backup disk and then perform the backup. The previous version seemed to have better integration as it removed blocks from the full VBK file during the backup.

Tape support is still not performing as expected (at least for my opinion) as Veeam relates to tape backup as a repository instead of a long term archive. Schedule options can be improved.

Veeam Backup Replication is a bit difficult to use. If you have used other solutions such as Commvault, you will find it is much easier to use. Veeam Backup Replication does backups in a different way that is not as simple as other solutions. Doing backups of SQL Servers is much easier in Commvault. However, the difficulty could be the lack of experience I have had with Veeam Backup Replication.

There is a lot of room for improvement, but the primary issue we have is that it's not built for the cloud. It wasn't designed for it but we're making it work.

Version 9.5 has been proven to be reliable, and U3a VMware 6.7 works without issues. Maybe synchronous replication.

I think it would be great if it could back up from inside virtual machines (like Backup Exec) with compression. For example, if it could backup files and folders, SQL DBs, AD objects, and so on.

I’d like to see them improve the time scheduler GUI or its compatibility with tape devices.

Not covering the physical environment is both a pro and con of the product. Many organizations still have to consider other enterprise class solutions because of their physical servers. The other thing that they need to consider is the integration between Veeam and other storage vendors to use all the array level features to make backups even faster and more efficient. I guess Veeam needs to have a look at the enterprise market and not get stuck with small or mid-range forever.

• Scheduling functionality is not as intuitive or as flexible as it could be.
• Some terminology can also be confusing or misleading.
• For service providers, multi-tenancy capabilities could be enhanced.
• Greater capabilities to protect physical hosts and applications would expand the use cases.
• Continuous data protection (CDP) capabilities would be well received.

The amount of disk space required for the long term storage of backups (archiving Weekly / Monthly / yearly backups) can be higher then expected if you have a large daily change rate in your VM. This needs to be planned for when considereing long term arciving of backup files.

It would be nice to be able to copy VMs directly to tape drives.

I think it is a good product but all products could be better.

Physical servers backup.

It needs to be able to backup physical servers.

I believe none.

My problem with backup software is the following: The main advantage that all of this software strives for is the ability to store data on a proprietary file system. When you look at the backup files stored in Veeam and other solutions, you cannot directly see the real files. Instead, you see a file structure where the backups are stored inside. This means if you lose the configuration of your backup machine, you only have files stored in a kind of file system that you just cannot get data from. I prefer backup solutions that allow me to regularly look at my backup files — to see the actual files.

I prefer a software backup solution that allows me to easily define my origin data, including data files, folders, and virtual machines. On the targets, they are stored exactly how they are. If it's a virtual machine file, I can find the virtual machine file stored somewhere. I cannot find my folders in a file structure that I don't understand what's in it. I understand why many backup solutions have this kind of file structure; however, this means I also have to have a full backup of the recovery system of my definition configurations.

I don't really like the proprietary file system or file structure, I always prefer the most simple functionalities where I can define this server, this file, these folders, backing up for this target, etc. I am not a fan of cloud storage for backups. Otherwise, I have to have another backup solution or my SAS backup cloud. In short, I am making backups of backups of backups. For me, that's a nightmare.

• DR features similar to Zerto
• No snapshots

I would like to see agents for backup of physical servers, as only agents for Windows servers have this tool. Storage backup for Linux servers is not yet possible.

It needs to be able to integrate with more storage vendors, especially IBM and Dell.

As every application has a scope of improvement so the Veeam, there are many areas they can improve on: the CBT errors, in hot add many times it is found that the Veeam proxy do not release the HDD even after the backup, offsite repository is not very stable.

The solution requires a lot of bandwidth because our servers are heavy.

If you do not use the standard software and you go with a third-party solution such as this one, it might not work the same. There is an integration issue I understand between the database standards.

Additionally, the solution can be difficult to manage if you do not have the training.

Pricing can be improved.

Add new features on application backup and recovery. And expand the range of applications supported.

I think it would be great to have the ability to use WAN acceleration as an integrated feature for local backup storage to save a lot more space.

A better reporting function where we can see all the job statistics as standard rather than buying this feature with Veeam One.

It should support physical servers, and as far as I know, v9 will do this.

I think it's fantastic, so none.

The tape management is not really efficient and some other products are better. I know that backup on tape is not the the main target of Veeam but, it's important.

Better flexibility for scheduling jobs, specifically for the SQL hourly log backup.

Virtual Environment

Backup of Physical could be improved. Additionally, customer service needs improvement.

In the next release, I would like replication directly to the cloud to be included.

It would be helpful if there was something that could assist you in managing the database more effectively.

It needs to offer an automatic check for backups.

• Relying on open source infrastructure for Veeam's architectural components instead of Microsoft for OS and DB.
• Support for containers, and agent-less KVM backups, and Citrix environments.

It requires a Windows Server, but it would be a good idea to have an appliance with no Microsoft license required. As of now, there’s no chance to backup NAS shares (CIFS/NFS).

The downside is when you need to backup physical servers as usually most organizations aren't running a 100% virtualized environment so that can be an issue. Another issue is when clients have file level data on storage and need or want to backup using NDMP as I believe that this isn't supported yet.

It could be so nice and useful if Veeam had a feature to enable backup of physical servers, especially physical Linux servers. This image-based backup would be an improvement.

Problems occur using VMware based snapshots.

There should be better use of the external hard drives. 

Veeam's been doing a good job in terms of delivering new features.

Retention Policy isn't flexible enough to configure complex retention policy.

Random CBT errors during backup jobs.

The documentation and communication could be better in Veeam Backup Replication.

Support others operation systems, e.g., AIX. 

Add an archive option to support legal obligations.

Dedupe capabilities.

The only issue on which we would like to see for improvement would be, potentially, the ability to do some different things with recovery, like faster recovery onsite.

The data duplication should be improved.

• ReFS works
• Evacuation of backups
• Merge

There should be additional support for guest base backups.

Backing up Exchange could be better, particularly Clustered Exchange.

I would like to see better features for exporting to cloud-based repositories.

Having reduced pricing for smaller businesses would be helpful.

Cross-hypervisor replication.

Its price is higher than other solutions and can be improved. They can also change the version of the software more often.

Besides Wintel environments, it would be good to have DR/HA for Unix/Linux platforms.