2020-05-02T01:01:00Z
Miriam Tover - PeerSpot reviewer
Service Delivery Manager at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
  • 0
  • 28

What needs improvement with Cohesity DataPlatform?

Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Cohesity DataPlatform.

What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?

3
PeerSpot user
3 Answers
RL
Chief Technology Officer at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Reseller
Top 10Leaderboard
2020-09-06T08:04:39Z
Sep 6, 2020

We have been kind of leaning on Cohesity a little bit to just start looking at providing tier-one storage capability off the platform. With the NAS workloads, we have some tier workloads that we will put on it, but it has never been touted as a tier-one storage platform. It would not be considered tier-one for NAS-based workloads anyway. Recently they just released all SSD nodes. Because of that, we believe that the upgrade in performance level is going be a huge benefit to us. Because we already use it as a target destination for our Zerto-based workloads we get to take advantage of the dedupe. The idea was when we do a recovery, we can do a native NAS recovery and it performs pretty well, but then we immediately had to be able to migrate the virtual workload to a primary disk. So that means that we always had to have a pool of tier-one storage sitting there unused in the event of a DR (Disaster Recovery) event or some critical situation experienced by a client. Now, with the FSD (File System Device) disc in there, we believe that we are not going to have to do that anymore. That lack of tier-one capability is the only pain point or area for improvement, but they are working on that. They have all SSD nodes in it now. We will be testing actual full recoveries on the NAS on their smart files. If I can run 30 or 40 workloads simultaneously with relatively high IO requirements, then we are going to be extremely happy. They have their CDP (Customer Data Platform) capability now, and we need CDP in a multitenant solution, which is on the roadmap for them. It is not available to us yet today. So that is something that we are anxiously waiting for. We run the multitenant edition and that is one feature that we can use and in our current multitenant configuration.

Search for a product comparison
Suren V - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Management Senior Analyst at ATOS
2020-07-10T10:46:00Z
Jul 10, 2020

* Documentation - Their documentation portal is not up to date for newer releases and I strongly recommend Cohesity to increase their efforts on the documentation portal. * Multi-tenancy is supporting limited functionalities and we are excepting to work for all features when we use multi-tenancy. * It would be nice to be able to restore Active Directory objects. * I would like to see an easier filtering mechanism on the elastic search. Currently, a global search in Cohesity GUI has limited functionality only to search sources.

Drew Nelson - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director Of Operations at Purple Communications, Inc
Real User
Leaderboard
2020-05-02T01:01:00Z
May 2, 2020

I don't like that the MS SQL Agents require a reboot during the initial install and that you have to install agents at all. You have to manually upgrade the agents depending on which release you have and unregister them if they don't show up correctly. They need to improve the process to unregister applications.

Related Questions
Shivanand Hadapad - PeerSpot reviewer
Solution Architect at Tech Mahindra Limited
Nov 16, 2020
Dear All, Any use cases where dfs and non-dfs shares are migrated to Cohesity Data Platform with near zero downtime? I feel below solutions are feasible: 1. Use Robocopy, pl 2. dfs replication provided windows OS supports the functionality 3. Backup and Restore. 4. Build a VM out of Cohesity and use VMware native tool to migrate everything. If you any other methods, please share your views.
See 1 answer
Russell Rothstein - PeerSpot reviewer
CEO at PeerSpot (formerly IT Central Station)
Nov 16, 2020
@ROD LUCERO ​@Drew Nelson ​@Suren V ​As you are on the Cohesity leaderboard and written reviews of Cohesity, do you have any advice for Shivanand? 
it_user434868 - PeerSpot reviewer
Senior Director of Delivery at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Sep 6, 2020
Hi, We all know it's really hard to get good pricing and cost information. Please share what you can so you can help your peers.
See 2 answers
Suren V - PeerSpot reviewer
Infrastructure Management Senior Analyst at ATOS
Jul 10, 2020
Compare and choose wisely by considering initial 7 operational costs. And require less FTEas compared to other legacy vendors.
RL
Chief Technology Officer at a computer software company with 51-200 employees
Sep 6, 2020
The cost is based on capacity. You have got a hardware component because you have got to buy nodes and you have got to buy discs for those nodes. That is typical server pricing cost whether you are buying Cisco systems or HP or whatever, you are buying two new rackmount boxes full of discs. If I am looking at comparing to the competition — let's say we compare Beam to Cohesity. Beam makes their solution look extremely inexpensive because they just say they are selling the software. You run the solution as a virtual machine. The idea is that they suggest you do not need anything else in the way of dedicated hardware. But in actuality, Beam still needs a lot of compute power to perform — especially if you need compression and encryption and stuff like that. So Beam makes it sound like it has some advantages because of the way it is deployed, but any backup product needs a lot of horsepower. Their claims end up not being the reality. When you factor the claims for not needing hardware in, then you have to try to compare apples-to-apples. Beam just really does not have an immutable storage capability because they do not manage their storage. From an attack footprint, Beam runs on top of Windows. So its attack surface is pretty large. When I run Beam, I have a dependency on the SQL server. Those are all things that we looked at and realized we might not want to have those risks. We had to look at the risk and decide if it was high enough to say that Beam was not an option. That was kind of a deciding factor because we did not want our backup platform to be the same platform that is our largest attack surface in terms of our app servers and all the Windows servers out there. Right now what we are seeing in the industry is the hackers are going after the backup systems first. If they get that, then they go take out the production data, and you are done. That fact makes mutable storage absolutely critical to us. The obvious solution to the problem was not having the platform be Windows-based as it was hugely important to security.