Technical Manager at Optimistic Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd
Real User
Top 5
2023-11-24T09:49:58Z
Nov 24, 2023
One area where Quest Rapid Recovery has room for improvement is in the handling of snapshots on Hyper-V. After the retention period, the snapshots on Hyper-V are automatically deleted, even though the integration is initially available. This creates a challenge for us, as we would like the snapshots to remain accessible on Hyper-V. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, I would like to see enhanced traffic security features. Specifically, the ability to integrate with Active Directory would be valuable.
I have not found any areas of improvement for the solution. In case, if there is anything, it would be the speed of the operation to be finished. Even then, I can easily work on the storing function before the operation is finished. However, there is a store operation almost any time but it can work either way so I find no problem there.
Technical manager at Optimistic Technology Solutions Pvt Ltd
Reseller
Top 10
2022-07-25T08:39:07Z
Jul 25, 2022
In terms of what needs improvement in Quest Rapid Recovery, though the solution is seamless, right now, they are just giving the software which means we'll need to arrange the hardware. If they can combine the appliance and software, that would be a great approach. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, it would be great if they'd add a folder backup feature because only a snapshot backup feature is available at the moment.
I think the self-paced learning and knowledge base can always be improved so that users can self-service without having to contact either a reseller or Quest. I know there are things that I would have been looking for to try and solve. And the only way I could get there was to actually open a ticket rather than go through self-service through the portal.
I don't really think that there is a whole lot that needs to be changed. It would be nice if you could deploy the agent without having to reboot. When I upgraded my core to the latest version, I also wanted to update all of my servers, but I had to put that off because I can't just shoot it out there. I have to make sure it is at a time when I can do a reboot right away. I do have one application that does not run on a server. It runs on a workstation that still is running Windows 7, and this new version does not have an agent for Windows 7. That would be something that would be helpful for me, but I totally understand why they're not doing that because, of course, Microsoft wants you to get off Windows 7. So, it can't necessarily be classified as an improvement, but it would be helpful for me.
Systems and Network Administrator at a tech services company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2021-06-14T20:33:00Z
Jun 14, 2021
For the most part, it is really good in terms of flexibility and choice of recovery methods. What we found lacking was being able to back up virtual volumes that are clustered. We ran out of luck there. There should be an option for backing up clustered virtual volumes.
Infrastructure Manager at a library with 51-200 employees
Real User
2021-09-14T18:03:00Z
Sep 14, 2021
There could be better space management for incremental data. When you use incremental data, the space in the appliance keeps on going up. There should be a better way to manage the space. You have to manage the incremental data to reduce the time.
Network Administrator at a manufacturing company with 51-200 employees
Real User
2021-09-09T15:37:00Z
Sep 9, 2021
It's not really Quest's fault, but the only issue that I had during the time when I was doing a lot of our restores is whenever the server reboots, it has to bring all of the repositories back in again, which takes around five to six hours to pull eight terabytes back in again. If a server reboots, the time to re-pull out the repository and recovery points back in does take a pretty long time. They should try to boost performance when pulling in recovery points from server reboot. But really, that's not a big knock on them. As long as I can get the recovery points, that's all that we really care about.
One of the features that I like is the Rapid Recovery Core portal. Basically, you can access the customer's site using a website URL. However, what I notice is that the information sometimes differs from what is in the Rapid Recovery Core. I think that more should be done to ensure that this is synchronized. When backing up the configuration it has to be done manually, which is something that should be improved. It is quite surprising to me that the configuration cannot be backed up automatically, and I think that Rapid Recovery should have an option for scheduled configuration backup. I had an experience with one customer where the backup storage was corrupted, and as a result, the repository was corrupt. In that situation, with the repo gone, we were unable to retrieve the backup. To handle situations like this, it would be great if Rapid Recovery offered a second-tier of backup. What I am doing now is archiving the repository, which gives me a secondary backup for my clients.
ICT Network Manager at St Christopher's School Hove
Real User
2021-05-21T17:29:00Z
May 21, 2021
When you do a full backup, all of the memory resources on the server are used, which is something that should be improved. It is an annoyance because I rotate my disks out for full backups, and I do a nightly backup of the incremental ones that have taken place over the day. When I try to complete a full backup, the process normally uses all my memory resources on the server. This is the oldest issue that they've had, which they just haven't resolved yet.
Systems Administrator at a performing arts with 11-50 employees
Real User
2021-04-13T19:36:00Z
Apr 13, 2021
The archive feature is a little cryptic. I don't think that it is very understandable. Also, the difference between transfer versus backup versus archive and all the terminology can be a little bit muddy. Maybe some white papers or something describing what each thing is, because I had to learn it by calling technicians. Thank goodness, I had a maintenance agreement with software support. For example, I was looking for something called backup and it was called transfer. So, the terminology wasn't things I was used to. I was trying to look through an archive, and I couldn't see where you mount the archive. I couldn't find it anywhere. Sometimes, once you know where things are and learn the system, then it is fairly simple, but it is understanding their terminology and what each thing means and how each part is used that maybe could be improved. The terminology didn't seem easily available. When I go to the website, it is hard to search for things. You get all the articles, then you finally get the search button. They need the search at the top of the knowledge base. Then, on occasion, if you get an error message in the system, which is very important, it says, "Click here for more information," but I never get more information. The search engine doesn't find it or it is some weird error. It has never worked for me.
The solution should improve the reporting functionality. The pricing could be adjusted. The on-premises deployment model shouldn't have a maintenance fee. If there's going to be technical support, they need it to be free or it should be paid on upon adopting the solution.
It's buggy. That's a big problem. We're arranging to get rid of it. We're going to switch to Veeam. We've had no end of issues with it. When we got critical outages, we weren't able to rely on. It's quite frustrating but they do have some really, really good support guys. Generally speaking, they do try and get on top of these issues as quickly as possible, but I've just seen too many bugs with it. It doesn't work as I want it to work. In the next release, they should tie up all these issues that they've got with the bugs.
Sometimes, when we have certain batches for Windows, it needs to be restarted. When it's restarted, the service is configured as a delayed start. Sometimes, you need to wait too long until it rights itself or you have to do it manually. I would like it if they could offer the solution as an appliance as opposed to a software.
Rapid Recovery support is very bad. It's outdated and needs to be expanded. Rapid Recovery can only backup the machine or disc, but it can't back up from folders, files, and things like that. In a future release, I'd like them to offer more database support, file-level backup capabilities, and recovery, and a better support menu in the restoration environment.
Quest Rapid Recovery is a software solution that helps you recover your lost or deleted data quickly and easily. It works by scanning your hard drive for any traces of lost or deleted files, and then recovering them for you. You can use Quest Rapid Recovery to recover files from any type of storage device, including your computer's hard drive, an external hard drive, a USB flash drive, or even a memory card.
Quest Rapid Recovery is easy to use and comes with a user-friendly interface. It...
One area where Quest Rapid Recovery has room for improvement is in the handling of snapshots on Hyper-V. After the retention period, the snapshots on Hyper-V are automatically deleted, even though the integration is initially available. This creates a challenge for us, as we would like the snapshots to remain accessible on Hyper-V. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, I would like to see enhanced traffic security features. Specifically, the ability to integrate with Active Directory would be valuable.
I have not found any areas of improvement for the solution. In case, if there is anything, it would be the speed of the operation to be finished. Even then, I can easily work on the storing function before the operation is finished. However, there is a store operation almost any time but it can work either way so I find no problem there.
In terms of what needs improvement in Quest Rapid Recovery, though the solution is seamless, right now, they are just giving the software which means we'll need to arrange the hardware. If they can combine the appliance and software, that would be a great approach. In the next release of Quest Rapid Recovery, it would be great if they'd add a folder backup feature because only a snapshot backup feature is available at the moment.
I think the self-paced learning and knowledge base can always be improved so that users can self-service without having to contact either a reseller or Quest. I know there are things that I would have been looking for to try and solve. And the only way I could get there was to actually open a ticket rather than go through self-service through the portal.
I don't really think that there is a whole lot that needs to be changed. It would be nice if you could deploy the agent without having to reboot. When I upgraded my core to the latest version, I also wanted to update all of my servers, but I had to put that off because I can't just shoot it out there. I have to make sure it is at a time when I can do a reboot right away. I do have one application that does not run on a server. It runs on a workstation that still is running Windows 7, and this new version does not have an agent for Windows 7. That would be something that would be helpful for me, but I totally understand why they're not doing that because, of course, Microsoft wants you to get off Windows 7. So, it can't necessarily be classified as an improvement, but it would be helpful for me.
For the most part, it is really good in terms of flexibility and choice of recovery methods. What we found lacking was being able to back up virtual volumes that are clustered. We ran out of luck there. There should be an option for backing up clustered virtual volumes.
There could be better space management for incremental data. When you use incremental data, the space in the appliance keeps on going up. There should be a better way to manage the space. You have to manage the incremental data to reduce the time.
It's not really Quest's fault, but the only issue that I had during the time when I was doing a lot of our restores is whenever the server reboots, it has to bring all of the repositories back in again, which takes around five to six hours to pull eight terabytes back in again. If a server reboots, the time to re-pull out the repository and recovery points back in does take a pretty long time. They should try to boost performance when pulling in recovery points from server reboot. But really, that's not a big knock on them. As long as I can get the recovery points, that's all that we really care about.
One of the features that I like is the Rapid Recovery Core portal. Basically, you can access the customer's site using a website URL. However, what I notice is that the information sometimes differs from what is in the Rapid Recovery Core. I think that more should be done to ensure that this is synchronized. When backing up the configuration it has to be done manually, which is something that should be improved. It is quite surprising to me that the configuration cannot be backed up automatically, and I think that Rapid Recovery should have an option for scheduled configuration backup. I had an experience with one customer where the backup storage was corrupted, and as a result, the repository was corrupt. In that situation, with the repo gone, we were unable to retrieve the backup. To handle situations like this, it would be great if Rapid Recovery offered a second-tier of backup. What I am doing now is archiving the repository, which gives me a secondary backup for my clients.
When you do a full backup, all of the memory resources on the server are used, which is something that should be improved. It is an annoyance because I rotate my disks out for full backups, and I do a nightly backup of the incremental ones that have taken place over the day. When I try to complete a full backup, the process normally uses all my memory resources on the server. This is the oldest issue that they've had, which they just haven't resolved yet.
The archive feature is a little cryptic. I don't think that it is very understandable. Also, the difference between transfer versus backup versus archive and all the terminology can be a little bit muddy. Maybe some white papers or something describing what each thing is, because I had to learn it by calling technicians. Thank goodness, I had a maintenance agreement with software support. For example, I was looking for something called backup and it was called transfer. So, the terminology wasn't things I was used to. I was trying to look through an archive, and I couldn't see where you mount the archive. I couldn't find it anywhere. Sometimes, once you know where things are and learn the system, then it is fairly simple, but it is understanding their terminology and what each thing means and how each part is used that maybe could be improved. The terminology didn't seem easily available. When I go to the website, it is hard to search for things. You get all the articles, then you finally get the search button. They need the search at the top of the knowledge base. Then, on occasion, if you get an error message in the system, which is very important, it says, "Click here for more information," but I never get more information. The search engine doesn't find it or it is some weird error. It has never worked for me.
The solution should improve the reporting functionality. The pricing could be adjusted. The on-premises deployment model shouldn't have a maintenance fee. If there's going to be technical support, they need it to be free or it should be paid on upon adopting the solution.
It's buggy. That's a big problem. We're arranging to get rid of it. We're going to switch to Veeam. We've had no end of issues with it. When we got critical outages, we weren't able to rely on. It's quite frustrating but they do have some really, really good support guys. Generally speaking, they do try and get on top of these issues as quickly as possible, but I've just seen too many bugs with it. It doesn't work as I want it to work. In the next release, they should tie up all these issues that they've got with the bugs.
Sometimes, when we have certain batches for Windows, it needs to be restarted. When it's restarted, the service is configured as a delayed start. Sometimes, you need to wait too long until it rights itself or you have to do it manually. I would like it if they could offer the solution as an appliance as opposed to a software.
You can only take a snapshot from a virtual environment. It should have the ability to take snapshots from both a virtual and physical environment.
Rapid Recovery support is very bad. It's outdated and needs to be expanded. Rapid Recovery can only backup the machine or disc, but it can't back up from folders, files, and things like that. In a future release, I'd like them to offer more database support, file-level backup capabilities, and recovery, and a better support menu in the restoration environment.