OpenText Data Protector Reviews

Neutral

The key concepts with OpenText Data Protector include centralized storage management and integration with cloud environments. It supports big data backups and automation, and allows for asynchronous backups. Additionally, Data Protector offers a web console for remote access, so you don't need to rely on a specific operating system. The software can be installed on a Windows machine or operated via command line on Linux systems.

In one of the projects involving a database and UCMDB integration, we needed to manage a large database. We used the scheduling feature in Data Protector to automate backups. This involved setting up backup sequences, which could include full backups, incremental backups, or a combination of both, depending on the requirements.

One of the benefits of scheduling backups with Data Protector is that it reduces the need for manual intervention. Once you set up your backup schedule, you can configure notifications to alert you if a backup is successful, fails, or encounters errors. This setup can also involve batch files to manage the sequence of backups. Once scheduled, the system handles backups automatically, allowing you to perform ongoing tests and manage various backup types without constant oversight.

Recently, clients have raised concerns about the lack of comprehensive documentation for Data Protector. This has been an issue, especially when troubleshooting or integrating with other vendor-specific products, as they need detailed guidance for these integrations. Another concern is related to VM backups and snapshot backups. Some clients question the need for complete snapshots when they could use time-based backups or partial restores. In my experience working with clients in both India and abroad, I've encountered various scenarios where clients have different preferences for backup strategies.

I’ve worked on various projects for AMG Australia and in India, including a challenging migration of an IDP from version 6 to 10. The process required incremental upgrades through intermediate versions (6 to 8, then 8 to 10, and finally 10 to 11), which was quite lengthy. We’ve encountered similar issues with customers using versions as old as 5.5 or 6. We’re looking for solutions that might allow for a direct migration from earlier versions, such as 7, to the latest versions without going through all the intermediate steps.

I have been working with Data Protector for 13-14 years. We are using V11.3 of the solution.

We worked on snapshot backups where some clients needed zero downtime. In those cases, we recommended using different storage solutions, such as snapshot environments. For certain clients, this approach was suggested and successfully implemented.

I rate the solution’s stability a nine out of ten.

Data Protector is very user friendly. It is easy to scale.

We used to handle one backup server for one to five thousand clients. Now, with numerous VMs, if we try to maintain that ratio, we attempt parallel and concurrent backups. In this case, we encounter performance issues. Managing performance is crucial because we need the right documentation to ensure compatible servers can handle the number of clients. With five thousand clients, each with potentially multiple backups, whether full or incremental, the backups can fail due to CPU usage or time consumption if not managed properly.

I rate the solution’s scalability a nine out of ten.

Technical support for the APAC region was very poor. They often asked us to provide logs and other information, but the response times were very slow and frustrating. Many clients left because of this issue. When working with a client, we sought tech support, but unfortunately, the support was inadequate.

It is agent-based. I find it very simple compared to standalone servers and other systems. However, when considering APIs and integrations, particularly for big data solutions like Hadoop and Vertica, we need to ensure we have the right resources for successful integration. Although we are able to perform these integrations, we face challenges due to the lack of suitable documentation.

I rate the initial setup a nine out of ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy.

Pricing is high compared to other solutions. If they offer suitable features and a compatible price, we can attract clients. If the tech support becomes good, the price becomes less of a concern. We need to regain client confidence, as many have moved away from Data Protector due to poor tech support.

Data Protector is available in three levels: entry level, mid-range, and enterprise level. For the enterprise level, we previously worked with the available infrastructure, but now we are moving towards cloud storage. With cloud storage, we may achieve better performance and can handle concurrent backups effectively, managing multiple backups on the cloud without performance issues or downtime.

They have certain built-in templates. Whenever a different type of backup is needed, they either replace the template or use a specific template and restart it. I was trying to convince the client that, similar to these templates, we are also developing templates that we can set up. For example, IBM is a competitor to Data Protector.

Everyone knows about Data Protector, but the major issue is the significant gap between support and the application. We need to emphasize that we offer good tech support and improve documentation. If we address these issues, we can convince customers to continue using DP, especially since many clients have shifted to cloud environments. We need to adapt our processes to focus on cloud solutions and present these alternatives to customers, rather than relying solely on existing infrastructure.

Overall, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

I use OpenText Data Protector as a backup tool.

The most valuable feature of the solution is that it provides users with a simple backup option. The advanced stuff, like the ones offered by Oracle and Microsoft, is just not as refined as OpenText VIM. OpenText Data Protector is quite good for simple file backups and has good compression features.

OpenText Data Protector is more difficult to use and configure than OpenText VIM. The user-friendliness of OpenText Data Protector has to be increased, and the complexity of the tool needs to be reduced. The product is just not easy to use. Teaching OpenText VIM to someone without experience is much easier, but it may take a week to do the same thing with OpenText Data Protector.

I have been using OpenText Data Protector for four years. I use OpenText Data Protector 10.91. I work as a team leader of the storage server team in my company.

I haven't experienced any crashes while using the solution. The tool is stable, but it's a pain to configure. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a ten out of ten.

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

OpenText Data Protector is complex to configure correctly, but the areas concerning the data and compression are good. Once you get the product to work, it works, but it's much too complex to configure and troubleshoot, as it takes a lot of time and energy, making it not so efficient. Once the tool is configured in your environment, it provides good backup and compression features.

In my company, we use OpenText Data Protector as a backup for our servers, and we have a team of 20 people to take care of the data backup using the tool. My company doesn't use OpenText Data Protector as a backup for our client's computers.

In my company, we have scheduled the process related to backup, which makes the tool run daily around 30 to 40 times.

There is only a little bit of the tool's documentation available. The tool does have a service desk, but the support desk is not too fast to respond. I rate the technical support a five out of ten.

Neutral

I use OpenText Data Protector along with OpenText VIM. OpenText VIM has evolved a lot, while OpenText Data Protector hasn't changed much. OpenText VIM has now added features that were missing in the tool earlier. My company does the consolidation part on OpenText VIM while trying to get rid of OpenText Data Protector.

I rate the product's initial setup phase a three on a scale of one to ten, where one is difficult, and ten is easy. The product's initial setup phase is complicated.

The documentation quality provided by OpenText Data Protector is not as good as OpenText VIM.

The solution is deployed on an on-premises model.

The solution can be deployed in two weeks, though it was already in place and a part of our company's environment.

My company requires two people to manage the product's deployment phase.

My company runs a managed service desk, and we have been managing the tool on behalf of one of our clients for the past three years. My team manages the product's setup phase.

In my company, we don't have dedicated people to maintain the tool, but we have an expert within a team who is the most experienced person with the tool. In general, in my company, we don't have a full-time role to just look after OpenText Data Protector.

I wouldn't recommend the solution to new users. Instead, I would suggest that new users go for OpenText VIM. If you already use OpenText Data Protector in your environment, then you may consider continuing with it. For new users, it is pointless to choose OpenText Data Protector.

I rate the overall product a six out of ten.

Primarily, we've been using it for backups. We've focused on backing up volume groups and files on both Linux and Windows machines. While I'm not certain if it supports VM backups, that's where our main focus has been.

There was an incident that occurred at some point, and our final option was to perform a restoration using a recent backup. In this case, we utilized Micro Focus to restore certain database files, and it proved to be quite beneficial.

It's user-friendly and not overly complicated to configure. It also seamlessly integrates with the other products in your library.

It might be unfair, but when I compare it to Veeam, I find that Veeam is more advanced. I've used Veeam more extensively than Data Protector. Data Protector, in my opinion, has a rather dull interface, especially when compared to Veritas and Veeam. I'm uncertain if it supports virtual machine backup and restoration. If they could enhance this aspect, they could gain more support from end users.

I have been working with Data Protector for two to three years. 

It is quite stable and I would rate it a nine out of 10.

It is scalable up to five users, but beyond that I have no idea. 

The decision to switch was made by the management team, and I don't have all the details on what criteria they considered. However, I believe they wanted a solution that could support Linux workloads in addition to our primary usage of Veritas for Windows backups. The switch was motivated by the need to cater to both Linux and Windows workloads.

It is easy to setup and I would rate it a seven out of 10.

I would overall rate it a seven out of 10.

From my experience, I can say it's not a highly complex solution. It's relatively user-friendly. However, as I mentioned before, its graphical interface is not very visually appealing, and I think others might find it uninteresting as well. But in terms of functionality, it performs the necessary tasks adequately.

Due to some management issues, we're moving to Data Domain.

The solution is easy to use. The management of the product is also easy.

We faced some certification issues after we upgraded to version 10.2.

I have been using the solution for around 16 years.

The tool is stable. I rate the stability an eight out of ten.

I rate the tool’s scalability a seven out of ten. Our clients are medium-sized businesses.

The initial setup is easy. I rate the ease of setup a nine out of ten. The deployment takes around half an hour.

The licensing cost is too high. It costs us a lot when we migrate with the appliance.

We have migrated the solution with an appliance. We are in a transition phase to use Data Domain. I recommend the solution for its ease of use. Overall, I rate the product a nine out of ten.

We use the solution mainly for backup and recovery of all our infrastructures. Also, we are using Veeam for this purpose.

Regarding features, the solution is highly stable when it comes to taking backups of our enterprise infrastructure, such as Linux, Oracle, and SAP.

If I compare products from HP to Micro Focus, I do not see a lot of development in Micro Focus like before. The product can be developed by including functionalities like DR, CDP, and SureBackup, which are currently unavailable in the solution. However, one also needs to consider that Micro Focus is used by enterprise-sized businesses that don't care about many features. The solution's data protection features and scalability could be improved.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector since March 2020. We are using Micro Focus Data Protector 10.03 and 11.03. My company is a consultant who provides the solution to its customers

It is a stable solution. Stability-wise, I rate the solution a nine out of ten.

Micro Focus is not as scalable as Veeam. Also, I have many customers working on Micro Focus Data Protector.

I remember that many of the cases of our customers that were highlighted to the customer support team remained unresolved for a week. Actually, Micro Focus needs to invest more resources because the product is sold from company to company.

The initial setup process for the solution is easy. 

The time taken for the deployment depends upon the infrastructure. If you have a lot of servers and storage, a lot of effort is needed to take care of the integration part of the solution. Veeam's deployment process is easier since it has a better user-friendly GUI. But, again, it depends on what the customer exactly needs.

Our company only needs staff members while carrying out any upgradation or migration processes.

The license for the solution is very expensive compared to the other products in the market. There are two types of licenses. Now, they are forcing all the companies to go for their capacity license, which is very costly. If a company is growing, it will require more of the solution, and the company will have to pay more.

I would recommend Veeam over Micro Focus Data Protector. Overall, I rate the solution somewhere between six to seven out of ten.

For various customers, Micro Focus Data Protector was used for backup and restore.

As a technology consultant, I used to deliver projects, and we used to have some concerns about the previous version versus the latest version. Based on that, we had our release going through on these products, which we overcame, and we even succeeded in getting upgraded from the older versions to the latest versions.

Customers wanted to upgrade from the previous version to the latest version, either on a Windows platform or on a Linux platform as well. They used to have multi-vendor storage boxes as well, and they wanted to know if it was compatible with this new version. 

They occasionally had an older version or older storage boxes that were incompatible. Based on that, we simply had the most recent support methods and shared them.

They were attempting to access the new storage, and we tried to find where they were stuck to support those issues.

The most valuable features of this solution were the features we worked most with which were telemetry, and the scheduler. We just had to onboard where we only had a few basic terms.

Most features we worked on were on a web console, but they still lack almost all of the features.

The other route was where they just wanted to learn more about cloud storage and where they wanted to go to applications, auto applications from local storage to cloud, but we couldn't give them the solutions because we didn't have certain enough features, facilities, in our lab environment where we could just work out our good R&D, and so on. But we failed in that situation because we were not given these solutions. That is something we could have done.

We have so many specific technological cracks in Micro Focus, but we are not getting the features, facilities, or coordination between the global delivery centers and the R&D team that we need to express our ideas. 

If they can overtake these, either they can go through R&Ds or they can allow us to go through R&Ds it would be helpful. Because we couldn't find certain lab environments where we could just try to succeed in those environments because we can't always go test in the customer environment.

When a technology consultant provides an idea, it is because they have just gone through the customer environment, they have gone through the lock and et cetera, they are well versed with those, and all they need now are some solutions. However, if I need to work with R&Ds, we don't have those solution architects who can help us manage, test, and implement those environments. 

That is where we fall short. We couldn't find an environment where we could simply try to go through testing and then implement it in the customer locations.

DP is a very user-friendly product, and we are transitioning to a web-based environment. It works because we don't have to go through a platform that is dependent on each cell manager individually. Rather, we can try to create a platform-independent solution, such as a portal that can be accessed from anywhere.

That is one option where I can work out in more central environments where I can just try to manage. We have a number of features where if we find a web portal and a good tool managing the number of devices and even just trying to configure along with a centralized medium and database, CMDB, we have a number of features. We have a very good feature going through centralizing media management, centralizing cell managers, and then working on a centralized media where we can just try to manage them to a cloud, which works very well because it is a centralized environment where we can pitch into it.

I was only working with Micro Focus Data Protector. I recently resigned and was transferred out of Micro Focus just two days ago.

It has not been longer than a year. We only recently started using 10.91 before upgrading from the previous version. And we recently worked on version 11 as well, which we successfully upgraded.

I had been working with Micro Focus Data Protector for 15 years, and I'm currently using DP 10.52.

I used to even deliver the training and travel across EMEA, I used to travel across Apigee, and we used to deliver the training and even collect their solutions. So we used to provide solutions, training, and even take over projects, as well as deliver and clear up their projects.

I was employed by Micro Focus until last week.

Micro Focus Data Protector is a stable solution.

This product is extremely good. When compared to other storage or backup tools on the market, it is extremely competitive. Most of them are preferable because they are user-friendly, have multi-vendor support, and also support cloud platforms. And we're going through the cloud as well as local storage. We have many specific visibilities, but we couldn't get the chance to explore everything in detail.

Micro Focus Data Protector is scalable.

No one has bothered to take care of the product because we have only been working on it for the last 15 years and most of the customers were satisfied and were using it.

They had been using third-party products, but they recently migrated to this product because it was user-friendly, easy to manage, and agent-based. We used to even convince them that we worked on cross platforms and so on because it is the only platform that supports cross-platform, backups, disaster recoveries via sites, auto applications, synchronization, and consolidation.

We have a number of different features and facilities in the product, but we haven't been able to find any such compatible people, those who can simply guide us or even just go through that. But, yeah, we just stayed in these places.

I can apologize to technical support because we were better than they were.

We would take a large amount of time. But now we see that most of them are extremely valuable. They understand the product, but they are not aware of the product.

Before we had very good people who would work out and give us the results. But now I see, I asked one of the results if I should just consider ITOL, and one of my customers recently stated that they would like to have a language for Portuguese, but I don't believe that language has become available. They have expressed regret that we are not providing adequate support.

Support is poor, I would rate it a two out of five.

I was experimenting with various monitoring tools. Working with SDM, Structure Data Manager, and Data Protector with automation and integrations.

Here, we have only worked with business clients. We had worked with customers who had complications, and we had customers who were in the early stages of either a fresh setup or a very complex configurations going through the very old versions of an agent and also the different vendor-specific storage boxes.

Most of them are no longer supported. They have only worked on older versions, such as six, version six, or 5.5. 

Now they want to import the data into the new service, and we provided them with a solution to import the data. We were successful in one of the customer locations. We used to do fictitious R&Ds because we didn't have the platform to work out and be comfortable and confident in those concepts.

Pricing depends on the licensing. Again, because now we are just going through different licensing, going through premium licensing, where we used to just call it a traditional base, we used to even have a capacity-based and et cetera here, but now we have some licensing confusions here. Because the customer now says, "We used to work on previous versions and still have active licenses available, so why don't we migrate or use those active licenses when we decide to upgrade?"

We have a lot of questions where we get confused because we just say it's possible. The theory suggests that it is not possible because we just tried it when we went to the customer and asked them to upgrade from version nine to version eleven. According to theory, if we want to upgrade from version 9 to version 11, we must first go from 9 to 10.4 and then to 11. But we did R&D, and we were able to export and import IDBs, and we were successful by migrating IDB and upgrading directly from nine to eleven. We succeeded.

We were concerned because we were unable to obtain the necessary support. DP is an extremely useful tool.

We have many competitors who are pricing better, and we believe that our pricing is higher. They used to customize those based on the product when they just wanted our pricing because I only see most of the licensing team. Because when I was working from HPE to Micro Focus, HPE had hardware as well as licensing, and they used to manage to go through the imagines between hardware and licensing, which was manageable.

Micro Focus is purely software, and we don't have that margin where we can reduce the licensing terms or the licensing cost. We lagged because most of them just wanted to go through traditional licensing, they just wanted to go with express licensing because most of the processes were going through virtualization, and so on. 

We definitely need to improve the price for licensing, in my opinion.

I would rate the pricing a three out of five.

My advice to new implementers is to please first try to understand the current environment and try to find out the prerequisites before proceeding with the solutions. Because most of them don't go with the existing environment, they just start implementing the new environment without understanding their setups. 

In my opinion, we should first try to understand the setup with their environment team, understand what all of their requirements are, and then proceed based on that. 

It depends on whether they're going through an enterprise hardware level, virtualization, or even a cloud. My concerns from what I have observed are once we have implemented, they later ask if we have certain features or capabilities available when they should have considered including these features as well before the implementation.

The issue is that the customer is not convinced by the sales team that the features are available and that they can go with these features, to test their environment. 

My suggestion is for the sales team to go into their environment, understand their requirements, and then talk about what features we have in our product to give them a clear idea that this is what the environment, this is what the features you may be expecting in your environment. We failed because our sales teams were unable to persuade them in the proper manner.

I would rate Micro Focus Data Protector a ten out of ten. 

This is the only product where the majority of them are unsure, either because of the features, which we only have here or because of the manner in which they have been convinced. But when I just work practically and try to convince customers, they are happy with the features that we have in the product. When we approach new customers, they say that it does not include certain features.

But when I try to convince them that we do have these features, and please let us know what features we need to have in order to compete with third-party products. I hope we have many features in DP, rather than going through because we are now going through a block-based system. If we go through file system backups, a number of integrations, and even big data, we are getting close. I think this is the most wonderful type of feature for what we currently have in Data Protector, where we can explore these things.

What we find most valuable in Micro Focus Data Protector is that it provides Japanese data protection, for example, it protects information such as the full Japanese name, address, etc.

We have a lot of requests for the Micro Focus team, particularly in terms of the Japanese data pattern, as it's not as good now. The Japanese data pattern accuracy of the Micro Focus Data Protector needs to be improved because there are a lot of false negatives and false positives. We are currently testing this and our product team has been communicating with the Micro Focus team.

What we'd like to see in the next release of the solution is better compatibility with other products, apart from a more accurate Japanese data pattern.

I've been dealing with Micro Focus Data Protector for two years.

Micro Focus Data Protector, in terms of stability, is not so bad.

I'm not sure how scalable Micro Focus Data Protector is because the DLP service goes through my company's SaaS product.

There's no need for me to contact technical support for Micro Focus Data Protector because my company's product team is there to answer my questions.

I didn't use a different solution before using Micro Focus Data Protector. It is a first for me.

The deployment for Micro Focus Data Protector was easy.

Pricing for Micro Focus Data Protector is reasonable.

My company and its customers use Micro Focus Data Protector, though I'm not sure which version of the solution is being used. It's deployed on the public cloud and via a SaaS service.

My rating for Micro Focus Data Protector is eight out of ten.

I'm a reseller of Micro Focus Data Protector.

We use the OpenText Data Protectoras an enterprise backup solution. It performs backups for various company setups, including servers and storage systems.

The tool's most valuable aspect is its ease of management. It was not complex. In terms of features, I can mention a couple of things. For example, if you need to restore a VM, you can do it with multiple streams in OpenText Data Protector, which is an advantage over Commvault, from what I've noticed, having worked with multiple tools. Another thing is the Oracle backups; configuring Oracle backups is much easier in OpenText Data Protector.

Automated backups run on their own schedules, which happens automatically as planned.

The challenge is that we can't restore a single file from the VM in the data process when we do VM backups. But with Commvault, you can restore a single file even if you have a VM snapshot package. That's one drawback of this tool. When we do VM backups, it should help us browse the VMs to restore a single file instead of doing the complete VM restore.

I've been working with the product for a couple of years. Throughout this period, I haven't been focused on just one tool; I've worked with multiple solutions.

The solution is stable. 

The product is a scalable enterprise solution. 

The tool's support is good but not the best. 

Neutral

The tool's deployment is simple. To implement the OpenText Data Protector solution, we first assess the size of the data and the number of servers that need backup. Based on this, we estimate the requirements for setting up the tool framework, including the media servers.

We allocate the necessary space and RAM for these servers. Once this is done, we proceed with the basic installation of the server, add the licenses, and configure the backup services.The initial setup may take around two hours, but the full deployment duration depends on the number of servers that need to be integrated and set up for backup.

The process doesn't require many people or resources. One person can easily handle the setup. If it's a large enterprise, a few extra hands might be needed, but the initial setup can be managed by one person.

The cost-effectiveness of the data protector solution depends on what the customer needs. If it matches their requirements, it's cost-effective. However, if they need more features, they might have to buy extra solutions, affecting cost-effectiveness.

The product is cheaper than Commvault. 

The tool  is easy to manage and offers centralized management, a major advantage. You can use one console to manage multiple locations. We don't currently use AI in our strategies, but we may explore it in the future. Integrating AI with OpenText Data Protector could help ensure that our backups are clean and free from cybersecurity threats or corruption. This would enable us to perform clean restores whenever necessary.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

Typically, our clients utilize OpenText Data Protector for Oracle firewall backup NDMPs and, more recently, for HANA. I have undergone training where OpenText explicitly stated their support for SAP HANA. Thus, we have a client base for whom we provide data protection using the Data Protector tool.

Every feature is important in data protection. Every feature plays a vital role. There's nothing particularly about it. 

It is easy to understand and implement. It is also easy to upgrade. These are the main challenges that we face, but OpenText Data Protector makes it quite simple.

In SAP restoration, we faced issues with changing the SIDs and changing the path for every backup object. It is quite a lengthy process to do that. We have to change that individually on every object. We have also provided an enhancement request to the OpenText team.

The backup process for SAP Oracle could be improved. When restoring, the need to alter SIDs arises, particularly in scenarios involving server changes or out-of-place restores. This leads to a requirement for modifying remote checkpoint settings and initiating the restoration process. The situation becomes more complex and time-intensive when dealing with a large number of files.

So, improvements are needed for the backup of SAP Oracle, especially for situations involving CPR codes

Another area of improvement is support. There's room for improvement in terms of the support we receive from the OEM or the technical support team.

The reason for seeking improved support is mainly due to extended response times. Mostly, I've encountered situations where an engineer has to wait until the end of their shift before passing the issue to the next level of support. This process takes too much time to resolve any issue. Unfortunately, we frequently do not receive dedicated support from the Micro Focus team.

Another area of improvement is stability of the application on Windows.

I have worked with this solution for more than two years. We currently use the latest version.

The stability is poor, especially the application which we run on Windows. It is not that stable, so we do some issues with the application. 

I would rate the stability a four out of ten. 

Our clients are normally enterprise-level businesses. So, we have approximately 30 clients using this solution.

There have been instances where Micro Focus helped us resolve cases, but most of the times, we handle the issues ourselves due to the prolonged response time from their team, sometimes taking several days.

Neutral

I would rate my experience with the initial setup a nine out of ten, where one being difficult and ten being easy. 

It is very easy. 

The deployment process typically takes around one or two hours.

To deploy the solution, you initiate the process by right-clicking in the admin interface. The deployment can be done manually or set up for automatic deployment. Information confirmation is a key step, and the solution is then automatically deployed. 

The pricing falls somewhere around seven out of ten, where one being cheap and ten being expensive. It's neither too expensive nor very cheap.

Usually, I work with the standard license rather than a capacity-based one.

I recommend it because it's simple to use, easy to understand, simple to operate, and simple to implement. The backup stability is commendable, even when dealing with NDMP and SAP Oracle backups. Based on my experience, I would suggest Micro Focus Data Protector to our enterprise clients.

Overall, I would rate the solution an eight out of ten.