Veeam Data Platform Reviews

Transforming from the physical system to virtualization -- vSphere or Hyper-V, KVM and then monitoring reporting infrastructure.

The most important problem in the data center system is to monitor and calculate real-time, to be able to accurately forecast or monitor for troubleshooting (not all software can do it).

• Optimal calculations for storage systems for operation and backup on DCV, HCI
• Stability and VM loading of the data center.

We have problems with IOPS calculations real-time, uncontrollable IOPS of storage leads to storage infrastructure errors.

The additional features are: 

• Running control of both network and IOPS on physical infrastructure 
• Predicting compatibility requirements to transfer resources from physical to virtual to meet backup RPO and RTO within 15 minutes
• Especially adding application objects to backup VM cluster (Oracle RAC, SQL cluster, AD delegation, Exchange DAG, MySQL Cluster).

My primary use case for this product is for backups and reporting.

The most valuable feature is the reporting feature. It is a very visual product.

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

I would rate the tech support an eight out of ten. It needs improvement.

I was not present during the initial implementation of the product.

I would suggest to others that they buy the full license when purchasing this solution.

I use it for our VMware environment and physical servers. It is a good product, in regards to performance, as well as data protection. 

After we bought this product, we backed up all the servers of Azure, as well as our physical servers. 

The product is user-friendly. 

• Restore "File" and "Folder" from VM Backup in Windows, as well as Linux.
• AD Restore 
• Exchange Database
• SQL Database
• Veeam dedup and compression 

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

Backup and replication.

Great RPO and RTO.

Replication.

Cross-hypervisor replication.

Until a year ago, this solution was our primary backup and recovery product. We are a cloud connect partner so we provide backups both onsite and offsite as well as replication.  

Veeam has simplified backups for MSPs over the years and is one of the easiest products to deploy.

The most valuable feature has been the integration of physical agents and our cloud connect service.  Using this, we're in the process of replacing one of our legacy backup products and standardizing on two products to handle all of our backup and recovery needs.

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.

Our primary use case is backup.

Replication.

• Seeding
• Faster backups over small links.

• DR features similar to Zerto
• No snapshots

For multiple data centers:

• Backup and recovery for VMware 2000 VMs
• Windows and Linux Clients
• Migrations (replication).

Veeam does its job well. However, there are more than a dozen commonsense items which should have been built into the software, such as being able to sort the column of server names while in a backup job and being able to see what VMs are already in a job when you add a new server.

Veeam replication gives migration tools/options for VMware, which is nice. I also enjoy the ability to quickly search for VMs through the Veeam console.

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. 

The remote SQL server has had multiple sizing issues within the logs and SQL backup space and sharing with other database apps. 

For example, when the SQL became unresponsive, Veeam crashed, jobs got corrupted, chains had to be restarted, old chains kept and pruned, etc. 

A little, but storage sizing is done by another company.

Half of Veeam support reps are very helpful and will explain in detail what is wrong and how to fix it. The other half are extremely polite and will provide some basic support, but rather than explain what needs to be fixed, they ask you to run some recommended steps and methods that take time providing with no real results so they can go work on another ticket.

We switched for multiple reasons. More options and configurations are available with Veeam. It can be a very flexible product.

Initial setup was easy. However, after 40 days, it may not act the way you predicted it would. You may have to go back and make changes. 

With Veeam, you need to analyze how everything works, not just how it looks like it should work compared to your experience with similar products.

Implementation was all internal.

Setup cost and licensing of Veeam are nothing to complain about when compared to similar products for enterprise backup recovery solutions.

We did not evaluate them to the same extent since they did not pass our evaluation requirements.

You will enjoy Veeam's resiliency. It does not break in the middle of the night if properly designed, and Veeam gives you tools to make this easier to do than other products. Users will be able to get around Veeam's shortcomings more easily if they are experienced with PowerShell scripting and watch the SQL database server (for remote SQL servers) like its your lifeline.

Backing up VMs and it has been successful so far.

It has mainly been in dev testing, so I would say it's helped us to protect our IP address and critical information.

The most valuable feature is its consistency.

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.

It seems pretty stable.

I can't say that I have tested scalability.

We didn't have a previous solution. We just realized that protecting some of the important data was something that was needed at a certain point, that we needed to do.

Most important criterion when selecting a vendor would be: Does the solution it fit our needs, what we are trying to do?

My understanding is that the initial setup was pretty simple and straightforward.

Right now we haven't fully exercised the solution but what I'm seeing on the backup side is pretty good. On the recovery/restore side maybe not so much. We're still validating that. So I would give it seven out of 10 overall.

My advice would be, test it out and make sure it does what you want it to do. And make sure you can do what you need to get your data secure.