The only thing that I want to be released is Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery's ability to connect to Zoho, which they're working on right now. I've been in constant communication with them, and I even spoke with their developer, so that's my only thing that I would really like to see happen, and they're working on it; they're a really good company that listens. The Zoho connection can be put in as something to improve; the more capabilities they can add, the better off it'll be, so don't stop at Zoho—keep adding more integrations, like Gusto would be a nice one; that's G-U-S-T-O.
Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery could improve in the area of documentation, which they are continuously working on. This is an ongoing process that should continue as documentation can always be enhanced. The dashboard could benefit from additional improvements, though it has already come a long way from its initial version.
I'm a little bit disappointed that over the last year and a half, there hasn't been too much contact from them regarding what's going to be new or coming out. I have another call scheduled with one of the managers there to get more information about this. The only point of improvement I can think of for Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery is that the restore process could sometimes be easier to do and faster. A file-only restore or directory-only restore can sometimes take quite some time; however, a server restore goes fast.
A feature that is coming up is to allow backup to the Azure cloud with Microsoft. Any interoperability or additional capabilities that become available with hyperscalers like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud would be valuable. Many customers do not rely on just one cloud provider and want to work with multiple clouds. In terms of what I would like to see, it would be to make the solution available across multiple clouds.
Learn what your peers think about Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery. Get advice and tips from experienced pros sharing their opinions. Updated: March 2026.
I think they could increase security. I would like to see more features for the section on the viruses and maybe another in reference to two-factor authentication.
Consultant at a comms service provider with 11-50 employees
Consultant
Nov 16, 2021
There is room for improvement by making the interface a little more intuitive when navigating to recover flat files or an old server. I haven't pursued the training as much as I possibly should have, so I don't know what is available in that regard. But from my own experience, if there were more self-training available, such as videos, that would be helpful. In addition, there's always room for improvement with the dashboards. There's a lot of information on the dashboard and, while it is good at the moment, continuous improvement is always a good thing.
There could be some room for improvement in the on-premises hardware selection. It is hard for them to deploy a lot of different hardware options. Depending on footprint size and overall capabilities, that is where there could be some flexibility in some cases. However, it is not a deal-breaker.
I can't really think of anything that really needs to be improved from my perspective, because I only use the backup. Maybe someone who is using something else might have a different opinion on that. But for the online backup and recovery tool, I'm not going to say there's anything that needs improvement. They can always improve stuff. But from the top of my head, I can't think of anything. It does what it needs to do. That's it. It doesn't need to do anything more than what it does and nothing less than what it's doing. The Infrascale dashboard when it comes to centralized deployment and configuration is excellent. I have no problems with the solution. They could always make it better. They can always make the GUI a little bit nicer, the interface level a bit better. There's always room for improvement, but there's nothing on the top of my head that's saying, "Hey, this is what needs to be fixed." But, the programmers are probably working on their own things. So, there's always room for improvement.
The barrier to entry should be smaller. Their ICB (Infrascale Cloud Backup) requires a minimum of one terabyte and the IBDR (Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery) requires one terabyte. It would be better if they could do 500 gigabytes. I don't always want to purchase terabytes at a time, although those are different products than what we've been talking about.
IT Manager at a healthcare company with 51-200 employees
Real User
Jun 25, 2021
They set me up as a vendor, not as a client. So sometimes I end up in the wrong portal and I'm doing vendor things instead of client things, and I didn't realize that right away. Once I figured it out I just changed my favorites on my desktop to go to the client-side. It confused me for about three days, when I was setting it up and deploying it.
I would like to be able to limit the bandwidth in cases, for example, where we are uploading the backup. I may want to set it to a maximum of 128kb in the application itself. I would also like to be able to move from one licensed product to another, and not have to purchase a new license if we want to use additional features. For example, if I wanted to move to the virtual appliance backup and the DR sites, it should be not a new product, but rather something that I can upgrade to and only pay an upgrade fee. A version for Linux would be an improvement, as we have some users with CentOS and Ubuntu for which we cannot do backups.
Infrascale overcomes the complexity of creating backup and disaster recovery solutions without sacrificing performance and reliability. We provide fast, secure recovery that enables customers to feel confident that their data is fully protected from any type of disaster, whether it be operational, environmental, or malicious. Infrascale provides data protection for SaaS applications, endpoints, and servers.
SaaS BACKUP
Protect Microsoft 365, Google Workspace, Box,...
What I would like to see improved or enhanced in Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery includes additional features for scalability.
The only thing that I want to be released is Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery's ability to connect to Zoho, which they're working on right now. I've been in constant communication with them, and I even spoke with their developer, so that's my only thing that I would really like to see happen, and they're working on it; they're a really good company that listens. The Zoho connection can be put in as something to improve; the more capabilities they can add, the better off it'll be, so don't stop at Zoho—keep adding more integrations, like Gusto would be a nice one; that's G-U-S-T-O.
Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery could improve in the area of documentation, which they are continuously working on. This is an ongoing process that should continue as documentation can always be enhanced. The dashboard could benefit from additional improvements, though it has already come a long way from its initial version.
I'm a little bit disappointed that over the last year and a half, there hasn't been too much contact from them regarding what's going to be new or coming out. I have another call scheduled with one of the managers there to get more information about this. The only point of improvement I can think of for Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery is that the restore process could sometimes be easier to do and faster. A file-only restore or directory-only restore can sometimes take quite some time; however, a server restore goes fast.
When the product works, there is really nothing to fix, but they can allow different types of backups, such as differential or incremental backups.
A feature that is coming up is to allow backup to the Azure cloud with Microsoft. Any interoperability or additional capabilities that become available with hyperscalers like AWS, Azure, or Google Cloud would be valuable. Many customers do not rely on just one cloud provider and want to work with multiple clouds. In terms of what I would like to see, it would be to make the solution available across multiple clouds.
I think they could increase security. I would like to see more features for the section on the viruses and maybe another in reference to two-factor authentication.
There is room for improvement by making the interface a little more intuitive when navigating to recover flat files or an old server. I haven't pursued the training as much as I possibly should have, so I don't know what is available in that regard. But from my own experience, if there were more self-training available, such as videos, that would be helpful. In addition, there's always room for improvement with the dashboards. There's a lot of information on the dashboard and, while it is good at the moment, continuous improvement is always a good thing.
There could be some room for improvement in the on-premises hardware selection. It is hard for them to deploy a lot of different hardware options. Depending on footprint size and overall capabilities, that is where there could be some flexibility in some cases. However, it is not a deal-breaker.
I can't really think of anything that really needs to be improved from my perspective, because I only use the backup. Maybe someone who is using something else might have a different opinion on that. But for the online backup and recovery tool, I'm not going to say there's anything that needs improvement. They can always improve stuff. But from the top of my head, I can't think of anything. It does what it needs to do. That's it. It doesn't need to do anything more than what it does and nothing less than what it's doing. The Infrascale dashboard when it comes to centralized deployment and configuration is excellent. I have no problems with the solution. They could always make it better. They can always make the GUI a little bit nicer, the interface level a bit better. There's always room for improvement, but there's nothing on the top of my head that's saying, "Hey, this is what needs to be fixed." But, the programmers are probably working on their own things. So, there's always room for improvement.
The barrier to entry should be smaller. Their ICB (Infrascale Cloud Backup) requires a minimum of one terabyte and the IBDR (Infrascale Backup & Disaster Recovery) requires one terabyte. It would be better if they could do 500 gigabytes. I don't always want to purchase terabytes at a time, although those are different products than what we've been talking about.
They set me up as a vendor, not as a client. So sometimes I end up in the wrong portal and I'm doing vendor things instead of client things, and I didn't realize that right away. Once I figured it out I just changed my favorites on my desktop to go to the client-side. It confused me for about three days, when I was setting it up and deploying it.
I would like to be able to limit the bandwidth in cases, for example, where we are uploading the backup. I may want to set it to a maximum of 128kb in the application itself. I would also like to be able to move from one licensed product to another, and not have to purchase a new license if we want to use additional features. For example, if I wanted to move to the virtual appliance backup and the DR sites, it should be not a new product, but rather something that I can upgrade to and only pay an upgrade fee. A version for Linux would be an improvement, as we have some users with CentOS and Ubuntu for which we cannot do backups.