NetApp Cloud Backup Reviews

NetApp has a nasty way of dealing with the license for the product's on-premises virtual NetApp appliance that you need in your whole architecture, and it is not directly linked to NetApp Cloud Backup. It is not a feature that I want to change in NetApp Cloud Backup because the cloud backup service is architectured in a way that makes it available to users, so it looks pretty good to me. When you go to the other side, you can see what you want to have on-premises for the main side in order to have backup in the cloud via NetApp Cloud Backup. With the on-premises part, you need to have either a physical NetApp or a virtual NetApp. You only have two options for primary storage from the network. In the physical cases, it is pretty straightforward as you have pricing and something like a grid with your NetApp. The sales representatives explain how much it will cost you to have some physical NetApp storage based on performance, types, and so on. The support contracts are for three or five years. When it comes to the virtual NetApp, you can run on top of an existing VMware tool or a recent cluster; it gets nasty because they do not let you change the licensed server. Once you deploy a virtual NetApp with a licensed server that you have on-premises, you migrate off from that, but NetApp does not let you change the licensed server, which should be really simple.

I have been using NetApp Cloud Backup for three years.

Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

The tool's scalability is really up there. I rate the scalability a ten out of ten as it has an impact on our business. It has a great impact on our business because we have the infrastructure deployed globally on four continents around the world. We have 65 different locations in maybe 45 different countries. In all of the 65 locations where we have a presence, we have NetApp Cloud Backup service available to users, and I see that the scalability is really there because it allows us to use all the support for global regions from NetApp Cloud Backup via Microsoft Azure Cloud. We chose Microsoft Azure as our cloud provider, and thankfully, it is available on all four continents, including China, so the product runs everywhere. The tool is highly scalable for us, and it allows us to plan and implement a DR strategy for any on-premises location that we might have in the future anywhere because if a cloud is there, we can definitely have a backup in the cloud from the on-premises location.

The solution's technical support is neither good nor bad. I rate the technical support an eight and a half out of ten.

Whenever a support request has to be raised, you have to waste a lot of time with their first line of support, which is generally available from a lot of vendors, not necessarily just NetApp but also Pure Storage or IBM. All the time, the tools keep sending you through their first line of support, which is the same as in NetApp's case. The fact is that NetApp's first line of support is not the most helpful in solving the problem. The product is pretty stable and very scalable. Not a lot of time; you have to go and reach the tool's support. There is a lot of time spent and lost with the tool's first line of support. I want to see improvements in NetApp's support for its big customers, and it is something that my company has addressed in the product. Some of the big customers who have, like, dedicated account managers, I have seen that when a case is raised, they are directed to an SME or to someone who can directly read and understand the problem associated with the incident. If you spend time with level-one engineers who are just getting started with their jobs and technical skills, then it is hard to solve something quickly and within the SLA that is agreed upon in the contract.

Positive

I am pretty familiar with Commvault for cloud backup. Commvault is like an alternative solution that is also deployed globally for all our company's 65 sites. Commvault covers most of the virtual machine aspects that we have on-site. Commvault will back up an entire server or an entire virtual machine when the NetApp Cloud Backup only backs up the file service data. It is not capable of actually backing up a database server. It is incapable of backing up an application server, a VM, a Windows physical server, local storage, and things like that, and for such areas, we have Commvault.

Commvault is specialized in doing backups. Commvault has software that specializes in doing backups everywhere and at any time. NetApp Cloud Backup service or backup service is just a backup service alongside their stored service, which is sold. NetApp's backup service is oriented up to if your company has primary file storage from NetApp, as it makes sense to use its backup service online because it is cheap, well integrated, and everything. Suppose you want to have different infrastructures around, like a VMware cluster that also has other digital machines running in parallel together with the file server and virtual machine from Commvault or, like, database servers. In that case, you have to look at the specialized backup tool and from a specialized vendor like Commvault. Therefore, Commvault started to do our backups for 80 percent of the technical environment in terms of technologies, and the NetApp Cloud Backup service is backing up only 20 percent of the technology, which is just the file service on the SMB side.

The solution is deployed on the cloud services from Microsoft Azure on top of NetApp Cloud Backup and NetApp BluXP. My company uses the public cloud. In Azure, we use the NetApp Service offered by Microsoft Azure Cloud. It is based on cloud volumes. Based on volumes, NetApp ONTAP is used, and so we have the integration with NetApp Cloud Backup in our company.

The tool's deployment is pretty much standardized for both the on-premise side and the cloud side. On the cloud side, it is standardized via the cloud console that Azure presents. You have the services and the tools that you want to buy in Azure. For example, for a particular scenario with NetApp, you have a service that you can use in Azure. For it, you have to fill in a couple of requirements, like name, IP address, and some technical information, but it is straightforward because it has templates. Everything is standardized, and you will find really good support information in Azure, along with some knowledge-based articles and NetApp support. The cloud part is good. The on-premises side is also good because it is built on top of the legacy NetApp tools for on-premises, so it is all pretty clear. The tool's build process is not something straightforward. The build part needs to be architectured, and one needs to have a really good plan in order to have it actually working. It is not the primary storage for the files. It is a DR tool, and it has to be tested besides the architecture to see if it actually works. In our company, as we provide the tool globally, we are pretty strong with our implementation, and we have, like, the DR testing of the solutions for the file services running both on-premises and on the cloud, so we are pretty happy with it.

If one is not cost-effective and ten is a highly cost-effective product, I rate the tool as a three. The tool is not so cheap. You have to pay some money based on fees to be able to host the data in the cloud so that NetApp can run the software, which is not cheap. You also have the bigger fees, which are for the on-premises side of hosting the storage for the file service, and such storage being hosted on physical NetApp is not cheap but okay. Being hosted on virtual NetApp, it becomes way more expensive because you have to pay a fee to NetApp for their virtual software, and you have to pay a fee to VMware for the virtual clustering and also replication of data, and then you have to pay a fee for the hardware vendor. The tool is not as expensive as the cloud. The data, or the running cost of the data in the cloud, compared to on-premises by default, is much cheaper than the OpEx and the CapEx costs.

NetApp Cloud Backup is our primary DR solution for our file service solution in Hitachi Energy, meaning we have multiple services like on-prem hosting solutions. As any company, we have this file service, like whatever users see on their computer through the NetDrive currently in our company, which is backed by NetApp systems globally, along with some Windows file servers, of course. Mostly, it is NetApp systems, so it is SMB software from NetApp. We have 65 locations on-premises globally, and we have a different NetApp system backing up NeDrive because we have a global infrastructure. The whole infrastructure is basically for the DR side, and this is how the tool supports us. The cloud backup from NetApp, which is Microsoft Azure's virtual volumes running on NetApp software, is interconnected with all our 65 locations on an on-premises model. On a daily basis, replications of the mapped drives backed by NetApp on-premises are backed up straight into Azure Cloud. As a part of our PR strategy is that whenever we lose, we have, like, the disaster recovery or the disaster scenario in any of our one of our 65 locations on-premises, and when we sense it, then we automatically with cloud backup and NetApp software, activate NetApp's replicated data that is in Azure Cloud. It allows us to continue to serve users with the file service because our data is currently running from Azure Cloud, but it is not the primary reason we run the data, and it is just as DR data in Azure.

For data integrity, SnapMirror is at the top of the snapshots of how the tool works to ensure data integrity. We basically have to respect the SLAs, RTOs, and RPOs we have agreed upon within the company. The snapshots are helping us in a way that can allow us to have a definitive time stamp of the data that was at some time on-premises, so we can schedule snapshots in the last seven days at an exact hour each day, and that helps us to know that exactly yesterday, we had the data at what time, or when was the data available the day before. NetApp's SnapMirror ensures data integrity and offers protection for us because as soon as the snapshot is taken and completed locally on-premises, the SnapMirror feature kicks in and basically starts the replication between that data that was snapshotted and the cloud volume. Basically, all the data from a particular time is replicated in the cloud. At the same time, the on-premises storage is still running, and it continues to serve the clients. The data keeps changing at the set intervals till the data is replicated into the cloud, but it doesn't matter because we have a way to define the timestamp at which we want to put the tendency, saying this is where the point from where we want to put the data in the cloud.

As the product is highly scalable and highly available worldwide, it financially allows us to lower the cost we would have for our DR environment because if we did not have a product like this, we would have to look at different alternatives, maybe from Microsoft or maybe from some company-built solutions like regional data centers that will have to be provisioned to stay online. We will also have to spend money on the hardware support and infrastructures to host some storage that it will allow you to have, like a DR location, highly available or time. In case something goes wrong on-premises, regional data centers will actually have to be workable and sustain the workload from the factory users accessing the file services. It is a lower cost for us as a company because this is the secondary data, not the primary data. It is not so cheap, but it is not so expensive in a crazy manner like it would be if you had to build a similar solution with your own tools and your own hosting. Being able to run the tool on the cloud, we have everything embedded into the same software from the same company, which is NetApp, together with the infrastructure and architecture that we have, and it allows us to really have a seamless file service and file service recoverability experience for end users globally at a good price.

The challenges that I faced with the product during the integration process were in the area of the networking side. You had to architect it really well in a way that data is accessible when browsing on-premises and also when you switch over to the backup on the cloud, so the network was one of the challenges, together with the firewalling part. Generally, the product was straightforward, technically, and also contractually, if I consider the costs from the beginning.

The only feature that I am aware of is that it offers protection as something that scans the data on the storage, whether it is on the cloud or on-premises, which is something that we do not really use. Leveraging AI with NetApp is not something I have seen. Even the feature with the ransomware recovery is pretty efficient because besides just making sure that it does snapshots and tries to scan the storage while those snapshots are running, I don't know how it actually scans the storage based on what repositories or based on what antimalware list or from which vendor is used, making them all gray areas even if it is a feature presented by NetApp.

I recommend the tool to others.

I rate the tool a nine out of ten.

We are currently using NetApp Cloud Backup at our Bangalore data center. We have a longer retention period as per the regulatory compliance requirement, so we have to comply with the regulatory processes in relation to our periodic backups.

We have a lot of trade-related data which is all part of the regulatory process compliances, meaning we have to back up that data as well as back up the containers. So, for example, if I have some image which has been installed, then with the SECURE Act, we are required to secure the container images. And securing, in this sense, includes taking backups.

Typically, we're able to see the target, the dashboard, and the different containers that are running. And then we define the backup strategy for that. Along with NetApp Cloud Backup, we make major use of other products like Veeam and Nutanix with our hyper-converged solutions. 

So it starts with the backup strategy, and then there are the backup policies based on that strategy. Those policies are enforced on the dashboard for the various hosts, and we can see whenever the real-time dashboard updates.

Basically, our usage depends on the number of licenses that we have. On the cloud, it is a pay-per-use kind of model. Currently it is pretty well-aligned to our needs, so once the backup manager is installed and it's up and running, whether it's in the cloud or on-premises, we're okay, unless the licensing agreement changes or something impacts the number of users. Sometimes we have to cut down on licensing, and restrict the number of users as per the contractual agreement.

As we are a customer of NetApp, it has been channeled through the vendor onboarding team, where there is representation from the APAC region to the entire central function of the vendor onboarding. There will typically be a system integrator who will be involved in case we need to procure certain specific services, particularly when it comes to professional support. If it's support that is provided by their partner, we consider that as well. There are a few available in India and it depends whether we go directly to the OEM or whether we go to the OEM partner.

One feature that works well for us is that the Cloud Manager is a completely agentless solution. There's a similar dashboard on both the versions for on-premises and the cloud, and with reference to the Cloud Manager, it's a little faster because there's nothing to be installed as such. Being agentless, it doesn't require any agent to be deployed on the targets where the backups are triggered.

One area that can be improved is around how we define the different KPIs. In particular, the business KPIs. I have my own in-house application for the business KPIs, so for example, with our policies around retention, which is a period of seven years, I have to read these parameters from other applications and I need them to integrate well.

NetApp Cloud Backup Manager should help to get this integrated seamlessly with other applications, meaning that it will populate the data around the different parameters. These parameters could be things like the retention period, the backup schedule, or anything. It might be an ITSM ticket, where it's a workflow that is triggered somewhere, and the ITSM ticket has been created for a particular environment like my development environment, an INT environment, or a UAT environment. This kind of process needs to integrate well with my own application, and there are some challenges. For example, if it allows for consuming of RESTful APIs, that's how we will usually integrate, but there are certain challenges when it comes to integrating with our own application around KPIs, whether it's business KPIs or technical KPIs.

What I want is to populate that data from my own applications. So we have have the headroom in the KPI, and we have the throughput, the volumes, the transactions per second, etc., which are all defined. And these are the global parameters. They affect all the lines of business. It's a central application that is consumed by most of the lines of business and it's all around the KPIs.

Earlier, it used to be based on Quest Foglight, which is an application that was taken up and customized. It was made in-house as a core service, and used as a core building block. But our use of Quest Foglight has become a bit outdated. There is no more support available, and it's been there as a kind of legacy application for more than ten years now in the organization. And now it get down to the question: Is this an investment or will we need to divest ourselves of it? So there has to be an option to remediate it out. In that case, one possibility is to integrate the existing application and it gets completely decommissioned. Here it would help if there were some better ways of defining or handling the KPIs in the Cloud Manager, so that most of the parameters are not defined directly by me. Those will be the global parameters that are defined across all the lines of business. 

There are some integration challenges when it comes to this, and I've spoken to the support team who say they have the REST APIs, but the integration still isn't going as smooth as it could be. Most of the time, when things aren't working out, we need dedicated engineers to be put in for the entire integration. And then it becomes more of a challenge on top of everything. So if the Cloud Manager isn't being fed all the kinds of parameters from the backup strategy around the ITSM and incident tickets, or backup schedules, or anything related to the backup policies, then it takes a while. Ideally, I would want it to be read directly from our in-house applications.

And this is more to do with our kind of product processes; that is, it's not our own choice to decide. The risk management team has mandated this as part of the compliance, that we have to strictly enforce the KPIs, the headroom, and the rest of the global parameters which are defined for the different lines of business. So if my retention period changes from seven years to, let's say, 10 years or 15 years, then those rules have to be strictly enforced.

Ultimately, we would like better support for ITSM. The ITSM tools like ServiceNow or BMC Remedy are already adding multiple new features, so they have to be upgraded over a period of time, and that means NetApp has to provision for that and factor it in. Some of the AI-based capabilities are there now, and those things have to be incorporated somehow.

One last thing is that NetApp could provide better flash storage. Since they're already on block storage and are doing well in that segment, it makes sense that they will have to step up when it comes to flash array storage and so on. I have been evaluating NetApp's flash array storage solutions versus some others like Toshiba's flash array and Fujitsu's storage array, which are quite cost-effective.

I have been using NetApp Cloud Backup for almost three years. 

Regarding scalability, we can just keep on increasing the nodes so scaling is fast and we can keep on scaling up to the required performance. So that's okay in the cloud. If I'm doing it on-premises, then it becomes difficult. With NetApp as a cloud service provider which takes care of all the computing requirements, it's sufficiently scalable.

They have the support teams, so if you have any challenges around integration, upgrades, or troubleshooting on a day-to-day basis, they can help.

We need visibility around the entire product roadmap, so if the versions change, we need to know what dependencies are required and how it will be phased out. I will not stick to just one or two roll-outs. Instead, we're looking at at least 10 to 15. Some may say "As long as I'm getting my work done," and that's the kind of attitude that is not tolerated.

As managers, we are hard-pressed to get all the product roadmaps from vendors. NetApp helps to provide us with the visibility and support for all kinds of roll-outs and upgrades which they may have from time to time, every year or two years, or whatever.

There are sometimes challenges that result in dead-ends when we're sorting out the dependencies. For example, it can be difficult to tell exactly which dependencies are required. But this is something we work out while liaising with NetApp, in addition to getting info on things like end of support timelines, and so on. All these aspects are part of our infrastructure and compliance best practices from a risk management perspective. 

Our usage depends on the number of licenses we have. On the cloud, it's a pay-to-use kind of model which suits our needs well. Once we have the Cloud Manager installed, the licensing process is okay, regardless of whether we're running backups in the cloud or on-premises. Sometimes, we have to restrict the number of users as per the contractual agreement and in this case we simply cut down on the licensing.

When considering costs, NetApp works out better for us than the backup solution from Veeam. Although Veeam has a good footprint in India and the APAC region, NetApp has a bigger global footprint, making it more cost-effective for us to go with NetApp.

I have also evaluated the cloud backup solution by Veeam.

I would rate NetApp Cloud Backup a seven out of ten. 

NetApp Cloud Backup is used to store and backup data.

NetApp Cloud Backup performance is good and they have beneficial technology. 

NetApp Cloud Backup could improve by being easier to use. Veeam solution is easier to use.

I have been using NetApp Cloud Backup for approximately eight years.

NetApp Cloud Backup is stable.

The scalability of NetApp Cloud Backup is good.

We have approximately 20 clients using this solution.

The technical support is good.

I have used other solutions previously, such as Veeam.

We have certified engineers, the initial implementation was not difficult.

The time for the implementation depends on the customer's environment and the deployment method, such as cloud or on-premise.

We do the implementation of NetApp Cloud Backup.

NetApp Cloud Backup has a subscription-based model and it is paid annually.

If you do the right sizing when selecting the subscription there should not be any additional cost. This would apply to any backup solutions, such as Veeam or Commvault. If there are any additional costs it's because the initial sizing was not done well.

I would highly recommend this solution to others.

When choosing a solution you need to find the one that best suits your use cases. The environment plays a big role when it comes to the setup and what you'd like to achieve.

I rate NetApp Cloud Backup a seven out of ten.

My primary use case is BCDR, so business continuity and DR, particularly around file shares.

The most valuable feature is the ability to do things the same way and failover to the Cloud in the event of a disaster or disruption and a little bit of data protection over time.

An area for improvement would be to add some kind of integration and reporting within NetApp or allow the customer to automatically see reports in the dashboard.

I've been working with this solution for about three years.

This product's stability is very good.

Scalability is very good.

I would say their tech support is really good.

Initial setup was pretty easy, I would say seven or eight out of ten for easiness.

We've seen savings with this product compared to the cost of a secondary and/or tertiary data center.

The cost of the product could be lower. The licensing fee is based on terabytes, which can add up quickly if you have a large capacity, but it can work well for both small and large customers.

Smaller companies should be able to maintain this product easily with only one admin, but larger enterprises will require teams of up to twenty people. NetApp is our go-to storage platform because of its flexibility, adaptability, and the different types of protocols it provides. I would rate this solution as ten out of ten.