VMware Live Recovery Reviews

We primarily use the solution for migrating our DR site.

We have a system that can now move us to a DR site. I have yet to experience any major crisis, however, so I haven't yet tried it. 

The solution runs well in the background, just in case we need it. 

It is stable. 

The solution has the capability to scale well. 

I don't have any notes for improvement.

I'd like the installment and configuration to be more seamless.

The user experience could be more friendly.

It's, by definition, a complicated product. 

We'd like the entire solution to be more automated. We'd like as much automation as possible. 

The solution is very expensive. 

I've been using the solution for more than five years. 

We haven't had any stability issues. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It is reliable.

We have not tried to scale the solution. However, we are aware that it can be quite scalable. It depends on the license. 

The initial setup and configuration can be complex. It's a complicated product. I'd rate the complexity of implementation eight out of ten. 

It took us a few months to fully deploy the solution. 

We had an in-house team and professional service to manage the setup process. We did not do it fully by ourselves.

The pricing is very high. However, you get what you pay for. You need to invest a lot of money in order to gain any functionality. In order to have a DR site and maintain it, you need the investment. 

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten. It's expensive. However, it's a good investment. 

In terms of recovery, if you have a test job script, you can put it on top of it. You can create custom steps so that it will be more granular. It will be an easy, one click solution when it comes to the recovery application.

It would be good if this solution could integrate configuration management software such as Chef Infra.

I've been using VMware SRM for more than a year.

The stability is always good because we replicate daily. I have never seen any issues because the replication is always 100% successful.

You can add multiple appliances, and it supports enterprise environments.

Technical support is very good.

The initial setup is straightforward.

The deployment takes about three hours.

VMware SRM is the best sustainability solution, I would rate it at nine on a scale from one to ten.

We use it for disaster recovery.

I like how VMware SRM is able to automate and orchestrate disaster recovery.

The price, in general, could be lower.

I've been using this solution for probably three years now.

It is a stable solution.

It is scalable.

My experience with technical support has been fine.

The installation is straightforward if you have the required skill level. It took about a week for the initial setup.

The price could be lower, in general. My clients pay for an annual license.

I recommend VMware SRM and rate it at eight on a scale from one to ten.

We use SRM for our failover strategy. It is for disaster recovery on failover.

Our systems fail over using SRM. So, we do a big bang DR, which is biannual, and we fail over our fairly massive Epic electronic health record (EHR) and our core applications. It takes us about 30 minutes to fail over using SRM, which is pretty good. In most hospitals that have Epic installed, Epic does the audit to make sure that we can fail over if something were to happen. Normally, sites will have a DR solution specific to the EHR, but right now, our pain point is the third-party tier-one clinical applications.

We've had configuration issues on occasion. We start to fail over, and then we have to call it off because the configuration is not right, or the data stores aren't configured correctly in the secondary data center. Oftentimes, it is just the experience level of the team, and we have to bring in the vendor to help and validate our configuration.

I have been using this solution for probably five years.

Their support is excellent.

I would rate it an eight out of 10. There is some complexity there, and that's where I would bring it down from a 10.

I use VMware SRM for DR testing and VR.

The solution is simple to use and has effective automation.

VMware SRM does not have the capacity to do DR tests. We had issues whenever we were doing tests with the root cause analysis. We had 70 to 80 percent successful results because the vCenters were overloaded and that was the reason that we were having capacity issues.

We have been experiencing an additional problem when adding a regular VM in the replicated storage. By default, it will show an error. However, there is not any monitoring mechanism that would show you are not supposed to have a regular VM which is non-VR in the replicated SRM storage. Whenever we used to do testing we had to figure out that a regular VM is there and remove it manually.

I have been using this solution for approximately seven years.

The stability should be smooth, and as for the capacity, we should be able to run the test successfully. However, from our research and DR test results, we came to the conclusion that we have to run the DR test during the non-production hours. Logically, they should be able to be done during the production hours, but that is not the case. We have to ensure that the vCenters are free and are not doing regular work for us not to have any issues during the DR test.

There needs to be better stability during heavy capacity in future releases.

The solution is easy to scale.

The solution is used extensively in our large organization.

When we first started out using this solution we encountered a few issues and used the support but we now know how to fix most of the issues and have not used them. Additionally, we have our own team for support.

The installation is logically simple and in the medium range of difficulty. However, you need to make sure you have the proper infrastructure.

I have evaluated Veritas and Zerto.

I would advise others looking into implementing VMware SRM not to totally be dependent upon it. Review other solutions, such as Veritas regulatory platform and Zerto. There are newer VM DR options coming out regularly and they should not have only one solution.

I rate VMware SRM a six out of ten.

We are consultants in disaster recovery software. We implement VMware products for our clients.

It is easy to implement for my clients. 

It's a very nice product.

I would like to see this solution be more scalable.

We currently use our security in addition to VMware SRM.

I am certified in VMware and VCloud. 

I have been using VMware SRM for ten years.

We have no issues with the stability of VMware SRM.

VMware SRM is scalable, but it can be improved.

We have 15 to 20 customers who are using SRM. We have customers not only in the US but in the UK also.

They provide very good technical support that is affordable.

We are also using Zerto.

It is very easy when it comes to integrating with a data center or an appliance, but it's a bit complicated.

The length of time it takes to deploy depends on the database we are accessing. It can take two hours to deploy.

We have two senior persons to deploy and maintain it.

I am not involved with the pricing. 

We have a procurement team and sales team that work with the vendors.

I would definitely recommend this solution to others who are interested in using it.

I would rate VMware SRM an eight out of ten.

We vetted out that data center a number of years ago. We were told SRM would improve our footprint within the data center and that was attractive to us at the time so we went with it.  

We are using VMware SRM but we are also currently looking into alternatives that could replicate the benefits that SRM currently provides for our on-premises installation. Once we are in the cloud, we are looking at whether or not we need dual availability zones. We also are looking at what functionality we could get from not having to change RPs (Recovery Point) as we do now with SRM.  

I would not be able to tell you the features and benefits that are best for the Engineering Teams. That would be more a question for my Engineering Manager and those guys. I am in service delivery and I am familiar with the product but not with hands-on use.  

The decision to move to another product is a matter of room for improvement around functionality and requirements that we had with AWS and moving to the cloud. We are not going to be procuring any more licensing for SRM when we make the move to the cloud. We were looking at a cloud-native solution in order to provide the same functionality as the SRM provides but in the cloud. That is just a matter of the changing environment.  

If the functionality of SRM could be replicated in the cloud, that would be the improvement we are looking for in the product.  

I have been using SRM (Site Recovery Manager) for probably six years.  

I have contacted technical support multiple times. I would not say that I am satisfied. They are not very good and need to make an effort to improve.  

The initial setup and installation were pretty straightforward. It was ten plus years ago so I do not remember the exact details, but I do not remember it being difficult at all.   

The cost of SRM is on par with market rates. So I think the costs for this product are fine.  

I personally will not continue using the VMware SRM solution. That is not a question of what is best. Our position moving forward is that we will not be having a footprint in the VMware space. If someone had the ability to focus on lots of things with using VMware in the cloud then there no issues at all with the product and this is a good solution for that purpose. The product functionality is fairly high-quality. Our decision is more based around the direction that we are taking. We will be cloud-based and we will be using AWS predominantly as our cloud-provider solution.  

On a scale from one to ten (where one is the worst and ten is the best), I would rate this solution overall as an eight-out-of-ten. It would not be closer to a ten because there is still some work that we need to carry out with regular maintenance and then there are the increasing license costs. An eight seems about right.  

We are a solution provider and this is one of the products that we implement for our clients.

VMware is being used for disaster recovery to protect two sites.

The most valuable feature is the automation, where you press a button and everything fails over seamlessly. It is quite good.

When used in conjunction with storage replication software it is not possible to separate and failover an individual VM. When the VMs are sitting on the same storage LUN, the granularity is not sufficient.  Ideally, we should be able to choose one virtual machine and separate it from the rest.

If the price were more competitive then it would be very good.

I have been working with VMware SRM for about five years.

It is stable for now. I haven't had any issues.

It is scalable, although the downside to scaling is the cost.

When I first contacted technical support, I had some issues. However, as time went on, the support has improved and I now think that it is okay.

Prior to using VMware SRM, we were doing everything manually. Failover of VMs was done manually from promoting the replicated LUNs to read write and then bringing them up in the DR VMware environment.  It was a lot of manual work when dealing with hundreds of VMs.

The initial setup is all right and we have had no issues with it.

The cost of SRM is a little bit high, especially for smaller companies.

Yes Veeam and RecoverPoint for VM

In summary, this is a mature product that works very well. It is easy to set up. I like the fact that it has a bubble test feature that allows you to test your configurations without actually failing over. However SRM is very pricy.

I would rate this solution a seven out of ten.