Veeam Data Platform Reviews

We use it for replication purposes. It makes recovery simple and we can also have a dummy recovery in order to show auditors and our superiors that our backup software really works.

In Veeam backup, the most valuable feature for me is the recovery. It allows me to recover almost immediately while I continue fixing the problem of the affected machine.

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

I've been using Veeam since 2016. I'm currently on Veeam ONE version 11. The solution is deployed on-prem.

The product doesn't require any specific maintenance. In our company, there are currently 10 people working with Veeam backup.

The solution is stable. The performance is all right. When you are using VMware hypervisor, it sometimes has minor issues, but they are not something to tell home about.

The solution is extremely scalable.

Technical support really went out of the way to assist me. They even came to our offices to help us out with the issue we were experiencing at the time.

We previously used the Symantec product, but it wasn't up to standard. We switched to Veeam because of its ease of use.

It's simple. It's a straightforward process.

Installation was done internally by our team. Deployment took about three hours 

The solution is expensive, but it's value for money.

I would rate this solution 8 out of 10. 

My advice is to watch the admin videos available on the Veeam website.

We primarily use the solution as a backup.

From our view, from HPE, the engineering teams of HPE and Veeam are working together, and we are developing some products. There is a tight integration between Veeam's product, Veeam Backup and Recovery, and HPE storage products.

This is, I can say, a win-win approach. Most of the features that we can use with HPE products are directly integrated with the Veeam. This is very important for the customers to have only one pane of glass to manage the backups and also use the HPE products for the backups.

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.

I'm in the storage business for more than 20 years. From the beginning, I used to work with VM backups. It's one of the major projects that I handle on the customer side. I used to work with Veeam as it is the leader on the market for VM backups. I used to work with Veeam.

It's a very nice product. The feedback from the customers is that most of the time, it's very good. We install it, and that's all. It works. It's a great product. The only thing is when we have very important environments, I can say it's a little bit complex.

It's so easy to set up that sometimes the breadth of the product is not very well used by the customers, as there are a lot of features inside. Unfortunately, the customers don't have enough time to see all the features that they can use to improve their backups.

In the data center, with HPE, they have some entities in Veeam. We have gateways. We have proxies. As soon as we have some scalability, to size these entities is not very easy. All the time we must work with a Veeam architect to set up the right environment. It's not so easy regarding scalability. It's mostly for large enterprises. For 80-90% of customers, it's very easy. However, for the 20 remaining percent, it's not very easy. It's not so easy, as there are so many features in Veeam that sometimes they are not very well used.

Two or three years ago, we had an important escalation regarding the Veeam environment. It's not very easy to have access to level three. That said, for 90-95% of the cases, it's okay. Sometimes, when we have a real problem, it's not very good, however, that's a general truth in the IT market.

We have a direct relationship with Veeam pre-sales. Most of the time, when we have a very tough escalation, we can make a request to Veeam directly in France, and they can help us in a very efficient way. We have a very strong partnership.

I've worked with a variety of solutions.

Veeam is very, very good when we have a virtualized environment. It's a major part of the virtualized environment. However, in the data center sometimes some other products like Commvault, for example, or NetBackup, have more features than Veeam. When we have very important environments with bare-metal servers, Commvault is a better solution compared to Veeam in some situations.

The difficulty of the initial setup depends. For the smaller environments, it's straightforward. It's very easy to set up an environment with one ESX cluster and one backup appliance to back up 100 VMs, for example, 100 or 200 VMs.

However, when we are in the data center, little by little, what we want is it to be present, to be an enterprise product, and when we are in the data center, when we have a lot of environments, bare-metal environments, virtualized environments, specific applications to back up, I can say that it's not so easy.

You must have the expertise to set up this kind of environment. The consulting phase and the preparation phase and the setup phase are very important. As soon as the environment is set up, changing something is not so easy. Many times we had to change the architecture after the initial setup as all the aspects were not been very well optimized for the environment of the customers.

There is not a very easy answer, as it is not only for Veeam. A backup project is a complex project due to the fact that we have some interaction with all the entities of our customers. We must have some workshops with all these entities to have the right solution to propose and to set up.

The licensing of Veeam sometimes is quite complicated, even if they have improved a lot the way that the licensing is working currently.

I'm a consultant. 

We're an integrator. I'm working for HPE. We are integrating only our products. Sometimes we integrate third-party products too, however, most of the time, we try to use our products. That said, it's impossible for my company to be the leader in all the environments. For example, for the backup,s we have some technology, some preferred partners, and Veeam and Commvault are the main partners right now for the backups.

I'd advise potential new users to analyze exactly what they want to do before implementing the solution as it's always better to know exactly what they want to do.

To set up the environment is very easy, however, you must anticipate future problems and think about scalability. You also need to think about how you are going to add more power to the environment. Everyone needs to prepare for the coming years. 

Right now, there are new demands on the market, and Veeam as a leader in backup software must anticipate these needs. Right now, we have some demands regarding the backups of objects, as, little by little, we have a lot of customers using objects as primary storage. 

In terms of anticipating such kinds of demands, Veeam is one of the leaders of the market.

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's a great solution.

Our primary use for Veeam Backup & Replication is for enterprise backups and replication.

It's used pretty heavily by us.

The features I find most valuable are probably the VMware snapshot backups and the Veeam replication. Their replication is very good.

It can easily be used for disaster recovery in a number of situations.

I don't know how it would compare to Zerto, for example, but considering that it can leverage backups for replication purposes, this makes it superior to either a backup product or a replication product. The fact that you can mix and match, for example, you can replicate off of a backup or off of a backup copy somewhere else, or off of the source machine directly, makes it superior for me.

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.

I like that you can use any kind of disc target and you can use any kind of high speed fiber channel as backend.

On a scale of one to 10, I would say that Veeam Backup & Replication is one of the best, so I'd probably give it a nine. There is not one perfect backup product and I think one of the challenges with Veeam is the lack of clients. Meaning, we have certain older systems that there is no Veeam client for, and there's no incentive for Veeam to make the client for it. But it does VMware backups very well.

My primary use case is for VM backups. We have more than 500 VMs to backup completely every day, which is quite a big backup, and we run it incrementally. This solution is deployed on-premises. 

The most valuable feature is how reliable Veeam Backup is. It has the normal expected features that allow you to ensure that everything is backed up completely. 

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. 

I have been using this solution for more than four years. 

This is a stable product. It rarely requires maintenance and I rarely deal with backup files that are gone or cannot be restored because of software bugs. 

This solution is easy to scale. 

The response time is quite slow and I have complained many times. But their technical skill is quite good. For most customers, the technical support should depend on the SLA that they have, but support doesn't always respect that. Sometimes they respond to us within the SLA, but after we reply, we have to wait around one day for another email. 

We implemented through an in-house team. There are two administrators for maintenance. 

Overall, I'm not happy with the pricing. The price could be improved. Every year, most vendors try to increase the price. It says it's being upgraded, but there's no improvement. The product stays the same, but the licensing costs are increasing. 

I have also used Zerto for POC. I found that Veeam is good for backups, but it has a limitation. It's good for VM backups, but can be quite challenging for file backups and replication. Zerto is different, in that it's good for replication and it's simpler to use. The license is quite expensive though. 

If you are looking into implementing this solution, I advise you to make a POC, understand your requirements, and make sure the solution you choose can provide what you want. 

I rate Veeam Backup an eight out of ten. 

I like how Veeam intuitively integrates with Zerto. They started on their cloud journey a lot sooner than other backup software, and Veeam has a lower footprint on your Commvault.

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.

I've been using Veeam Backup for about 10 years.

For traditional environments with physical servers, Veeam isn't as great as combos or traditional backup systems like TSM. However, if you are looking at virtualization or shifting to the cloud, Veeam is stable and quite progressive in those spaces.

Veeam's support is international and quite responsive.

I give Veeam Backup Replication eight out of 10.

We use it internally for our own systems, and we have slightly less need on our clients' side, just because they rarely need that kind of system. We can achieve it with other tools.

Its simplicity and the fact that it just works are most valuable. We kind of set it up and generally forget about it. It does what we need it to do in the background, and it doesn't involve a lot of management.

In terms of functionality, it's pretty good, There is a lot of variety in what it can do and how it can back up. We probably use only 10% of what it is kind of capable of, so we're not really pushing the boundaries of it and having any problem.

It is always nice to get products cheaper.

We have been dealing with this solution for maybe five years.

It is absolutely stable. We tend to set it and forget it. It has been a very reliable solution.

We don't really have much experience with their support. Over the five years, we've maybe put in one or two tickets, and that's about it.

It is very simple. It is pretty self-explanatory as long as you understand the virtual environments that you're working with. Veeam itself is pretty easy.

It is always nice to get products cheaper. 

Technically, it saves you a lot of money. If you wanted to buy the same functionality out of vSphere, you would spend thousands to essentially get the same functionality.

I would highly recommend it, but it also depends on whether or not it all fits in with the clients and the pricing model. It is like any backup solution. You have to consider what you're trying to get out of it before you go ahead and configure it, but for backup and replication across hosts, it works really well.

I would rate it a nine out of 10 for what it does. I don't know anything that does it as well.

The solution is primarily used for disaster recovery, replication, and stacking up all the endpoints using the product's endpoint component.

Setting up the replication is very simple.

The solution just works consistently. I never have issues with it.

The product is stable.

The scalability is excellent.

I have issues with the licensing. 

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

I've been dealing with the solution for eight years. 

The stability is excellent. The solution just runs. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze It's extremely reliable. 

The scalability has been great. I can pretty much do whatever I need to. The problem is the licensing. Scalability equals licensing and that costs quite a bit.

The solution is best for businesses that are larger - those that have got multiple systems, and by that I mean about 20-plus systems, that need to be protected. 

I have no issues with technical support. They have been helpful and responsive and I am satisfied with the level of service I get.

The initial setup of it has a learning curve that is a little bit steep, however, you quickly get a hang of it.

The solution is quite expensive, and that becomes an issue if you need to scale. Costs add up quite quickly. At the end of the day, it doesn't matter how good your product is, if it's not affordable, you're not going to get people behind it.

I'm an end-user.

My company uses both private cloud and on-premise deployment models. 

The solution is a very good product for what it does. 

I'd rate the product at a nine out of ten.

If this is a good solution or not for a company depends on the company size and what it wants to achieve. If your company is about 15 to 20 people and you just need to have backup and recovery and not have to worry about 24/7 uptime, then I wouldn't recommend Veeam for you. However, if you need something that is up 24/7 and you can quickly recover, then I would say go with Veeam. For big systems, I'd say you'd go with Veeam, and that it works best as an onsite system. When you start moving to the cloud, and when you need to back up the data for the company, you've got other systems that also can handle it.

It is for backup and replication.

We use it for failover and disaster recovery. There have been times when our primary systems have failed, and we've been able to run virtually until our primary systems are available again. From a business continuity experience, it has worked fairly well.

Replication is most valuable.

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. 

I have been using this solution for eight years.

It is stable.

I am not trying to scale it up.

I didn't have any issues with technical support.

We use Zerto for the main part, and Veeam for a little part. We use them for different things. I prefer Zerto because I get a better RTU and RPO. It may be not as easy to set up, but once it is working, the RPO is in a region of 10 seconds. As compared to Veeam, its replication is currently two or three times.

It is of medium complexity.

It is relatively cheap.

I would advise others to use it. It is a good system.

I would rate it an eight out of 10.

We use it at our site for our nightly backup and for disaster recovery (DR) replication to another site. So, we use WAN Accelerator. We use scheduled copies to another datastore, and then, of course, we do it for our backups for SQL servers and other servers.

WAN Accelerator helps tremendously with replicating our data because we have a large chunk of data that gets replicated between our two facilities. We're getting ready to purchase Nimble Storage that has Veeam integration, and it is supposed to improve our replication even more.

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. 

I have been using this solution for three or four years.

So far, it has been pretty steady and stable. I haven't run into any type of issues with it.

It is scalable. What they definitely don't recommend is running it off a virtual machine rather than its own physical machine, but then we have some replication servers that we use for VM. So, the actual Veeam installation is set up on a physical Dell server, and then it is almost like they are sub engines. You would use these other processes to kick off the replication for whatever you want to be replicated to your DR. So, it is not all functioning from a single server. We have like three or four of those forms of replications.

The tech support and the training are pretty good. I sent one of my former employees, who was an intern and also my main Veeam administrator, for the training. He said it was very technical, and there was a lot to digest. He couldn't just do a transfer of knowledge because someone would have to go through that program to get a good understanding of how the solution works. He had gone through a lot of reference documents that came from it, and based on his feedback, it was pretty good.

We used to have Symantec Netbackup, and we replaced it with Veeam. Symantec Netbackup was clunky in terms of the upgrades. The other issue was that you couldn't throttle the replication bandwidth. 

It had the capability of doing a DR replication, but if you fall a couple of versions behind, there was no gradual update. If you fell behind by four versions or something like that, it was a nightmare trying to get it upgraded to the latest version. We had to have a consultant come in who worked with Dell but was intimate with Symantec products. He had to spend a week or two weeks with us to go through that upgrade process. It was more designed for backup to tape, and that was the main function for which we were using it. When we decided to go away from backup to tape and we wanted to do site-to-site replication, we didn't think that it had that inline capability. It was also costly.

From my understanding it was straightforward. A colleague in one of our other facilities was more intimate with the solution. Basically, we bought a physical box. It was a Dell box that had storage on it. It was our main Veeam backup server that handled the replications because it was used to store the backups. So, we didn't back up to tape. We back up to disk, and it replicates to the DR disk. Setting that up wasn't a problem. 

We also had to expand our local backup by using an additional span and then configuring that in order to work with Veeam as well. We didn't have any issues with it. 

In terms of maintenance, we only assign one person who manages it. So, it is a part of his daily tasks. This person looks for success and failure, and, if needed, kicks off a backup that failed. He also does the quarterly review to make sure that it is up to date and addresses any replication issues. 

If you are trying to replace an existing solution, you need to map out how to integrate Veeam while not impacting the current backup. That's what we did. We had to look at how do we continue our Symantec backups while implementing our Veeam. We slowly graduated at it. 

If you are doing any replication with Veeam, you need to determine the tier of the replication to a DR site. We broke out our SAN datastore so that the storage for what we would consider critical backups are done from a different datastore versus the entire SAN. Instead of implementing it first and then trying to change everything around, we did a lot of such pre-work prior to implementing it.

One of the things that Veeam doesn't like is a major change. In such a case, you will lose your data points or restore points. This means that if you've done 14 restore points and you go and make some major change to it, it could break that 12 restore point chain, and now you basically have to start all over again.

I would rate Veeam Backup & Replication a nine out of 10. 

The solution is so good to use. It allows for proof of concept. One can run a test on the database, move backups from one server to another, do file restoration or make use of portal storage features. 

Backup and storage is very fast, reducing what would otherwise take hours to minutes. Veeam was designed for virtual environments. The first year it was involved in supporting VMware virtual environments. 

While I do not recall whether the latest version is 10.0 or 11.0 I do know that it allows one to make a back up repository that is very scalable and simple. This can be added from multiple different levels, in respect of a single disc, through employment of cluster servers, data domain storage, or even tape library. This means the repository is very scalable, as the growth of data in the past years has presented a big problem. Cloud services can be employed as a back up repository. 

While I may not be the user testing each new market product, I am very happy with the solution's scalability. It boasts a support team that is good and fast and can conduct its affairs in a host of languages. When it comes to instances involving support, I can discern the differences over the past two months. Technical support is fast, helpful and provides good advice. 

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. 

We have been using Veeam Backup & Replication for three or four years. 

The solution is absolutely stable. 

The solution is absolutely scalable. 

I am absolutely satisfied with technical support. We benefit from it completely. Its multi-lingual character is definitely important. 

We were using IBM Tivoli Storage Manager for 15 years before making use of the solution, although I don't know what the product is called at present, as it replaced a branded IBM Protect product. 

We were using IBM Tivoli Storage Manager at a time when the majority of our data servers were running on physical machines. From IBM's perspective, the licensing has become more involved since virtualization became increasingly prevalent. While it was not in my purview, the prohibitive nature of the product led us to migrate to Veeam software and to procure a different license. 

While IBM Tivoli Storage Manager was considered to be the leading solution of its time, it was also very complicated. 

The installation involves a single package and is pretty simple. This is in comparison to the installation of the DB2 of Tivoli. Now, the installation is done in a single stroke and is so simple and the solution so nice. While we don't really make use of it at the moment, several years ago we constituted one of the main monitors of the virtual environment. 

The installation time is contingent on its scale as it varies based on the size of the environment. Another factor would involve the installation of disparate versions for different machines, such as concerns a proxy repository. A further possibility is to install everything in a single machine in virtual storage. 

I would put the main installation at 20 minutes and add another hour for configurations, such as those involving emails and reports. 

I consider the installation to be fully completed once I can carry out a task. We are talking about one or two hours. This takes into account the different applications for disparate environments in Veeam's environment. 

Overall, we have two people who are responsible for deployment and maintenance as it relates to everything involving the physical backup and virtual environment. 

We purchase a license annually. 

When it comes to the cost, IBM software is significantly more expensive than the solution for our environment, although we are talking about four years ago. 

We have two Veeam servers in two disparate sites.

The solution is not deployed on the cloud. One of the servers is physical and the other virtual, with the support and backup capabilities comprising 50 kilobytes of SSD storage. 

I would recommend the solution to others. 

There are approximately 700 people making use of the solution in our organization. 

I rate Veeam Backup & Replication as a ten out of ten.