Veritas Backup Exec Reviews

Veritas is used for standalone servers. such as physical servers We also use it for backups.

Veritas is good for small environments.

It's a good product.

In one console, you will see a variety of things. In my opinion, it should be simple and straightforward. It is currently a little complicated. 

It is not straightforward to click the drives. 

Even assigning the tapes to the media pole is difficult when compared to Veeam.

Some of the steps, are to assign, create a set, then a media set, for example.

In the future, their console should not be complicated. For example, When you compare with Veeam it has multiple columns on one side itself where you can browse all of the features. With Veritas, it is not like that at all, it goes to the next window, then the next window, and continues that way to view the features.

Veritas Backup Exec is a stable product.

The scalability of Veritas Backup Exec is good.

Technical support is adequate, but it could be improved.

We are also using Veeam and Symantec.

Veeam is completely different when it comes to virtualization, such as virtual machines.

We use Veeam for the majority of our backups.

If I had to rate Veeam, I would give it a ten out of ten.

It is not an expensive product.

I would rate Veritas Backup Exec a six out of ten.

It is responding very well, and its performance is good. It has a lot of options. For backup, you can connect it to a cloud or a physical hard drive.

They also provide an API for integration with different platforms and products. However, we have not integrated it with another product.

Its scalability should be improved.

I have been using this solution for four years.

It is stable.

It is scalable, but its scalability should be improved. Currently, we are using it for 15 computers. When we tried to increase its usage to 17 computers, it was very slow.

I never required technical support from the vendor because they provided a lot of documentation with the product.

I had some difficulties in the first two months. I read most of the information and highlighted a few things, and since then, it is fine. For every update, they provide a lot of documentation.

Before Veritas Backup Exec, we were using a solution provided by a South African company called Vox Group. They used to monitor directly from each office. They had their own interface monitoring for monitoring the devices.

Its installation is very simple. It took around one hour. 

It is also very simple to upgrade. I just need to launch the new version. Upgrade also takes around one hour. There are some files that we need to upload. We also need to install some drivers and check the compatibility. Every version comes with a driver pack that we need to install.

The first installation was done by a vendor. They did a remote installation. Their company is based in Belgium.

For the monitoring of this solution, we have only two people. My colleague and I handle its monitoring.

I would recommend this solution for a company with around 15 computers. When we tried to increase its usage to 17 computers, it was very slow. We plan to keep using this solution for now. Later on, if we find something more scalable, we will switch to that.

I would rate Veritas Backup Exec a six out of ten.

We use the solution for the backup capabilities of our whole system, including our applications. We don't use it as a VM backup, however. We're able to handle daily backups of everything and we tend to back up quite regularly.

The solution is very fast. It does not take a long time to backup everything.

We have a backup operator and admin that can handle the back up of the files on the database. They're able to handle all aspects of the solution quite easily.

It's very good at allowing us to back up the servers.

We had issues during the installation.

The solution is affected by internet congestion. It requires quite a bit of bandwidth in order to really work effectively.

The pricing of the solution is a bit high.

We've found the scalability to be a bit limiting.

I've been using the solution for about five years at this point. It's been a while.

The solution isn't really giving us what we need. We're seeing some limitations and we're finding it doesn't support us in the way we need it to. Therefore, we are looking at potentially moving off of it in the near future.

Normally we have about 17 people on the system, and three core people that handle the solution directly.

I'd advise a company, if it is smaller, or needs a comprehensive solution or a virtual environment, that Veritas may not be the best option.

We mostly worked with technical support via a portal for customer support. Largely, we've been happy with their level of service. They call us when we have issues and they help in whatever way they can.

The initial setup can be a bit complex. We had to adjust some settings on one server in order to finalize the deployment.

The solution operates on a subscription basis. A company pays yearly. They also need to pay extra for technical support access.

We're currently looking at other options We're considering moving away from the solution.

We're just customers. We don't have a business relationship with the company.

The solution is a bit expensive. The trade magazines seem to imply that you can do a virtual environment for almost the same price, which would be better.

Overall, I would rate the solution at a seven out of ten. It's okay. It could be better in a variety of ways.

I use the solution daily for daily backups and weekly for full backups and monthly for the stuff that gets sent off-site.

As far as if we need to restore a file, the solution absolutely has improved the way our organization functions. It saves us a lot of time. We're backing up all of our servers with it.

The backup potential of the solution is very good. It's protected us in the past very well and allowed us to get up and running after an attack with minimal loss.

The product needs to be consistent. Within the process itself, a lot of times it will hang on the jobs and you have to then restart all the services to get it to release. The job rate sometimes just randomly will tank. Therefore, you have to stop jobs and restart them in order to get them back at a quicker pace. Those are probably the two worst features. 

Something within the software itself isn't quite right. There may be a bug or glitch. It will work fine for weeks and then all of a sudden it just tanks.

I've been using the solution for about 12 years, however, it's my understanding that the company itself has likely used it longer.

We've found some sort of bug or glitch in the solution that makes it a bit unpredictable. It will work fine for weeks and then all of a sudden it just stops and takes a dive.

That said, it's pretty stable. I would probably say, it is at least 90% stable. It's that 10% where the job rates have a little bit of a problem. I was hoping that this newest version would be better, however, it has the same issues as older versions.

The solution's scalability is actually getting better. I have not tried to go into the virtual world with it, however, it says that the product can do it. I've not tried it due to the fact that we're using the other products for it, and have Veeam for a virtual solution.

There are three of us that would potentially could go into the product to use it. That includes a network administrator and myself.

At this point, we don't have plans to increase usage.

I have never used technical support personally just yet. The previous administrator had to for a couple of different issues and they mentioned that support was good. 

I'm not sure if a different solution was ever used. I've been at this company for 12 years and we have only used it. They used it even before I arrived. I'm not sure if anything came before it.

The initial implementation was actually fairly easy. It was pretty straightforward. I actually just rebuilt it and put it onto a newer server. It is actually very easy.

I had deployed within a day due to the fact that I was familiar with it. If somebody wasn't familiar with it, might take them up to a couple of days to do it. I was very familiar with it and therefore could do it pretty fast. It took me just a few hours or probably a day's worth of work to get everything in there, the way I wanted it.

We do not require any additional staff for deployment and maintenance.

We handled the implementation in-house. We didn't require a consultant or reseller to assist us.

Any time any of these products can back up your systems so that you can quickly restore them or restore files is most definitely beneficial to your company.

The solution is not the cheapest option. It's pretty pricey.

Although I know that we pay for it yearly, in March, I'm not sure of the exact costs.

The pricing goes by different types of databases that you're backing up. It's more expensive, for example, if you have an SQL database depending on what you're backing up.

I don't recall paying anything beyond a standard licensing fee for the product.

We're currently considering looking for a new solution. We want to see what is out there. This product is also quite expensive.

Having a reliable backup is essential to your company. For example, we were using this product to back up one of our servers that got the CryptoLocker virus. We were able to go back and restore it to just a few hours previous to the attack and we were able to get everybody right back up and running within a day, in less than a day's time. It absolutely could have just spread right through the whole environment had we not caught it. This solution gave us the ability to be able to get back up with minimal data loss.

Overall, I would rate the solution at an eight out of ten. If they were able to take out some of the bugs we have found I'd rate it higher.

Our primary use is that we are using it for backup mostly with Hyper-V service.  

It allowed us to step up to a better backup routine from the previous product we were using.  

The most valuable features for me are the ease of restoring the data and the backup window.  

I think that the one place the product could improve the most is in user-friendliness. If you compare it with Veritas' NetBackup, for example, that difference is pretty clear. They could take a lesson from their own products.  

Capability-wise the Backup Exec product is very good, but the lack of user-friendliness means people struggle to find and use some of the interesting features that would otherwise benefit from. They will miss utilizing those capabilities.  

Reporting capabilities are not up to the standard of other products. If you compare the reports which we get from NetBackup, those contain a lot of information that we need and do not get with Backup Exec. By comparison, the Backup Exec reports are pretty simple.  

Better reporting capability and a more user-friendly design would greatly improve usability.  

We have been using Veritas for backup for close to five years now.  

We have not seen any glitches in the product's function. It has always been stable and reliable.  

It is easy to scale the solution. There is a limitation to the size or complexity of the environment that it will be optimal for, but it is scalable.  

The technical support is pretty good. We have reached out for Backup Exec and we have gotten the support that we needed.  

We were using Data Protection Manager prior to Backup Exec. We switched to Veritas because we saw by comparison that it was a better product for our situation with more capabilities.  

The setup was simple. I do not really remember exactly how much time it took to set up because it has been quite some time now, but I know that we did not have issues getting it up and running.  

The setup was done by a small team from within our company without the help of a vendor or integrator. The team was mostly made up of engineers within the company. The product has remained in place for about five years.  

It requires maintenance from our side. Usually, it is mostly the admins managing it, so that is about four people in our case.  

The cost of Veritas is really mid-range for this class of product, I would say. Everything is included in one license and there are no additional, hidden costs.  

My advice to anyone considering this product would be to know how many servers have to be covered and the complexity of the environment as well as the capabilities of Backup Exec. Veritas cannot handle a complex environment very well. It is really only designed for a simple environment.  

On a scale from one to ten where one is the worst and ten is the best, I can rate Veritas Backup Exec as somewhere around eight. It has some very good capabilities but limitations with system complexity, user-friendliness, and depth of reporting.  

I use it in many uses, for example for Microsoft Exchange and for databases, for active directory and file servers. I use Backup Exec because it has agents for different software and is based on your infrastructure.

I remember in the 2010 version you needed to have two jobs per data source; one job for full backup and another job for a differential. But now you can merge both of them into a single record and have different schedules for them. The results and the interface are better now, and there is no extra knowledge needed for using this. It is very simple.

I prefer to use a tape library and Veritas Backup Exec is fully compatible with different tape libraries. So I prefer this software.

Of course, all of the solutions are agent-based, but granular recovery, GTR, works well in Backup Exec. It was Symantec in the past. I can easily recover a user or a file. It mainly works directly to the original location, which is why I prefer to use it.

In the past, it was not user-friendly. But nowadays it's very user friendly. But it could be better if it had a web-based interface. 

A web console would be great because nowadays a lot of products are web-based and you can access the console from various environments. So I would recommend bringing this feature in the next solution.

I want to have a user-friendly interface for virtualization. Now virtualization doesn't have an extra interface. A great interface would be good. And maybe it would be better if they launched a virtual appliance.

I have been using Veritas Backup Exec for at least six or seven years.

I am still working with it on daily projects.

It is stable. It's like other Windows based services. You turn down the tape library and want to restart services. I think it would be better to be more intelligent about these changes. For example, when I want to turn off the tape library and turn it back on, it would be better if there was no need to restart the services. Sometimes I need to restart services or even sometimes I need to restart the server in order to bring up the tape library or ABS.

I don't know how compatible it is with a cloud environment, but for scalability for SMB companies it's good because you could have one central management and deploy different servers in different areas and manage it in a single, central point. I think it is good for SMB's.

Generally, I use this solution for servers and not for clients.

It is good for small and medium clients. Although I think that it would not be popular with enterprise companies. I don't have experience in a closed environment. But I think if you don't have this environment, it would be good and suitable for them too.

Generally, Web Backup is more complex, but Backup Exec is easy to use. 

The initial setup is not very complex. I've deployed in different projects, but installation was the easiest part for me. Having a good plan for the backup solution is more complex than installation, I think. You have to consider the concurrent back-up jobs and the speed and data growth. 

It is good that you don't need to install an extra database.

On a scale of one to ten, I would rate Veritas Backup Exec an eight.

I would advise that it's not important which product you use because I think most of the products are good quality and nowadays have at least a standard because of technological enhancements, but it's more important to understand the concept of back-up and recovery. For example, how many jobs are needed, what is your infrastructure, what storage do you need, things like that. Having knowledge of data and back-up recovery is more important than the actual solution.

It's not important which tools you use, because nowadays all the solutions, for example, Veeam, are good. It's better to know what you want and to have good knowledge of back-up and recovery concepts, for example, storage, data, data growth, SQL, etc.

We use the product for data backup purposes.

The product's most valuable feature is scalability.

Veritas Backup Exec's support services could be faster.

We have been using Veritas Backup Exec for eight to nine months.

It is a stable platform.

The product is scalable.

The initial setup is complicated and takes 45 minutes to complete. However, the prerequisites, including environment monitoring, make operating easy.

The product's price is reasonable. However, it could be reduced. We purchase its yearly license.

I rate Veritas Backup Exec a six out of ten.

We have two use case types. We do onsite and offsite. Onsite, we need some conversion and backups. Offsite, for example, similar to Symantec, it is based on the volume, and we sell this solution to clients. 

We've used the solution for ten years, and everything has worked very well.

There are many settings, and after working on it for so long, we have a good understanding of the configurations that make sense. 

It's easy for us. It's like a legacy of predictability. We've used it for a long time.

The initial setup is easy.

It's stable.

The scalability is good. 

We need to have duplication and better compression. We don't really get that with Veritas. There's customer demand for it. 

We'd like to see some better synchronization between the office and other sites. There's room for improvement in off-site syncs. 

I've used the solution for ten to 11 years. 

The solution is stable. I haven't noted any issues. It doesn't have bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

It is a scalable product.

Maybe in the early years, we used to seek support, however, now, since we are quite versatile with it, we deal with any issues ourselves. We normally don't seek any support now. When we used them, maybe ten years ago, they were quite helpful.

We find the solution to be straightforward to set up. It's not overly complex or difficult. I'd rate it a ten out of ten in terms of ease of implementation. 

We always keep three people (engineers) on the solution. During the implementation, we have three people there, and they can handle maintenance once it is up. If, for a backup, somebody's not available for a particular reason, we'll be covered as we don't rely on one person.

We are resellers.

We use the latest versions to ensure we get support as older versions often lose support.

I'd advise potential new users to read the manual well and don't just go next, next, finish, et cetera. Read everything well to understand the options they are providing. I've seen many people fail to understand what options are offered or what the customer needs. If you don't do the right configuration, it becomes faulty. It slows down the process if it's not configured right. 

I'd rate the solution ten out of ten.