AWS Backup Reviews

Our primary use case for AWS Backup is for SAP systems, including all of HANA databases.

The most valuable features we have found are the flexibility in the services offered.

The AWS Backup backend reporting is a major area that needs improvement. We would be very excited if we can see some reporting, such as trends. We do understand that there are reports available for S3 Bucket, in which the AWS backend stores the data. However, if we can receive holistic reporting, then it would be very helpful for us.

I have been using AWS Backup for approximately three years.

AWS Backup is stable.

We have not found any issues with the scalability of AWS Backup. It is highly scalable because there are no size limitations to the S3 Bucket.

We have approximately 15 users using this solution in my organization which are mostly the backup team. 

The technical support is amazing, it is the best.

We have previously used Data Protector but the stability and the support were very poor for the data, from the data protector side. It can be a possibility that the competencies for that as well were not also good. We addressed several cases to Micro Focus as well, but we did not receive a good response. Soon after we decided to go ahead with the AWS backend. We were happy with the tool and all the POCs that we have done.

The initial setup is very easy.

I did the implementation myself.

There is a lot of flexibility with the services and pricing. The price is reasonable when compared to other products. This is very good for us.

I have evaluated Micro Focus Backup tools.

When comparing AWS Backup to any other backup solutions at the present time. If your product or if your systems are already on AWS, it would be highly recommended to go ahead with the AWS backend. If your systems are not on AWS, then you can choose any other cloud platform, such as Micro Focus Backup tools.

I would rate the solution higher if the reporting was available. However, it's a pretty new product for Amazon as well. We do understand the complexities, but there are other certain factors that we have seen that are causing us some difficulties, such as we cannot directly download files from S3. We have to utilize the AWS backend and only then can we download the files. If they can add this feature, it would be very helpful to allow us the direct download of files from S3 and then we can restore it directly on the HANA.

I rate AWS Backup an eight out of ten.

I primarily use AWS Backup for backing up RDS and Postgres databases on Amazon RDS. Additionally, I use it for DynamoDB, DocumentDB, and S3 data stores.

What I like about AWS Backup is its simple approach to a complex problem. The ability to set up backups using simple tagging and apply different backup plans and rules based on our needs is valuable. For example, we can set different retention periods for various databases, depending on customer requirements. This tagging and rule-setting feature saves us a lot of time in managing our backups effectively.

One improvement I would like to see in AWS Backup is the implementation of incremental backups, especially for databases like MongoDB. Currently, full snapshots are taken each time, which can be costly for large databases. Incremental backups would help reduce these costs. This is a key requirement for us, and we have already communicated it to AWS support teams. If this isn't addressed, we may need to explore alternative backup solutions, despite the current limitations.

I have been working with AWS Backup for four years.

We haven't had any stability issues with AWS Backup.

AWS Backup is scalable and meets our needs well. We use it in our production environment, where we have around three hundred databases configured, and it handles the workload effectively. We have more than 200 services using AWS Backup.

The technical support for AWS Backup is generally fine. We haven't needed it much due to our experience with the product. Any issues we have faced are more about product features needing improvement rather than support quality.

The initial setup process for AWS Backup was straightforward for us. We used Terraform for deployment without encountering any significant issues. While there are options like AWS Organizations for deploying across multiple accounts, we currently manage around forty environments, which is manageable without additional configurations.

Deploying AWS Backup is relatively straightforward, but ensuring it meets our requirements took about two to three months initially, and less time for subsequent deployments as we became more familiar. It's a complex task to ensure it works across all environments. However, I managed the deployment with minimal resources, mainly myself, with some assistance. AWS Backup is a managed service, so installation wasn't required, only configuration. Maintenance is covered by AWS.

The price of AWS Backup, at about ten cents per gigabyte, could be lower, but it is clear and predictable. We understand our monthly costs and can adjust retention periods accordingly. Calculating the return on investment for AWS Backup is a bit tricky, but overall, it provides value for the money spent.

We use AWS Backup for disaster recovery planning by backing up AWS databases and restoring them as needed. We can perform point-in-time recovery within one region and copy snapshots to another region, such as from Ireland to Frankfurt, to ensure recovery in case of a region outage.

We integrate AWS Backup with other AWS services like RDS using simple tagging. By tagging database instances with a backup plan name, AWS Backup automatically sets up the backup process. It is straightforward and works with various types of data stores.

We are exploring automation capabilities, particularly in automating our restore process for disaster recovery. Our goal is to move beyond occasional manual disaster recovery exercises and establish automated backups and restores, possibly leveraging tools like GitHub Actions for testing. Ensuring that our backups can be reliably restored is crucial, and automation plays a significant role in achieving that.

When it comes to the restore process in AWS Backup, the main issue is the need to specify each database individually for restoration. It would be beneficial to have the ability to restore groups of databases or services together, simplifying the process and saving time. Currently, this feature is not available in AWS Backup, but it would be a valuable improvement for users like me.

I would recommend AWS Backup to other users. It is reliable and effective, and we are satisfied with its value. While additional functionality would be nice, we are happy with it as it is.

Overall, I would rate AWS Backup as an eight out of ten.

We have implemented AWS Backup for our clients. WS Backup has been used for disaster recovery plans.

We have automated backups in many client solutions. For example, one of our clients is NIS. We schedule backups for the night since their system has lower traffic outside of daytime working hours. 

We automate the scheduling with Python scripts and a cron job. During the night, the backup is created and stored in S3. After a set period, the backup is deleted as per the schedule.

Our team is fairly experienced with restoring data, and they don't find any major difficulties in restoring data. Because the expertise of the team also matters.

We have standard procedures for securing client environments. This includes tools like WAF for DDoS protection and AWS services like Inspector. Moreover, we utilize a variety of AWS's inbuilt security features.

RDS backup is one of the most crucial components of any client's cloud environment, so we generally use that. 

Additionally, we store EBS snapshots in S3.

The integration with other products has also been easy. 

There is room for improvement in customer service and support. 

For additional functionalities, it should be more intelligent, like more AI-capabilities. 

I have been familiar with this product for three years now. 

I would rate the stability of the product an eight out of ten.

I would rate the scalability of the solution a ten out of ten. 

I have issues with the customer service and support. 

Neutral

The implementation is easy. 

The clients pay for the whole AWS bundle. It is an affordable solution. 

I would recommend using this product. AWS Backup is easy to use and implement. There's no complexity when i compare it with other similar products for company tech.

Overall, I would rate the product a nine out of ten. 

We use the solution for backing up the data of our business applications.

They should improve the installation process. Presently, it requires a bit of customization to implement it.

We have been using the solution for six years.

It is a stable solution.

The solution is highly scalable for both SMEs and large enterprises.

The solution's tech support is good. But buying an additional subscription for support services would be best. If you don't want to invest in the plan, you can use forums and the internet to resolve the queries.

Positive

The solution's initial setup is complex. It requires specific knowledge of the underlying systems for configuration. 

The duration of the deployment process depends on the business case. For a very complex environment, it takes around ten days to complete.

The solution offers good value for money. Its price is reasonable as the users can pay as per their service requirements.

I recommend the solution to both SMEs and large enterprises. I advise them to have sufficient AWS knowledge or involve a good service partner because it requires more work if they buy third-party products. I rate the solution as a seven.

We use it for server backup, which is done weekly.

I'm also using AWS for QuickSight. It's been about four months since I'm using it for some statistical analysis. I'm still on that project, which is also AWS.

When I was using an on-premises backup, there was an external hard drive or something like that. I had a backup server, but I had a few problems related to transfer when I had to restore something that I have deleted. I had to wait for after-office hours to do something like that, but now I just have to send a mail. Within one hour, I have my restored file.

Only the price could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about two years. 

We do not do anything in terms of contacting AWS support. A company we use for support does that for us.

We use a company for support. It is an IT company in Mauritius, and they normally do everything for us. They do the deployment and everything. We just have to use their support.

We don't use a lot of space, only approximately 900 GB, so the price is reasonable. For standing, it's okay. We normally do a payment to SSML, and they are the ones who pay over there. It is around $100 monthly.

I think we compared AWS and Azure, but we decided to take AWS because it is ranked as the number one for backup support. It was also about the cost etc. Normally, the directors make the final decision, and they were the ones who finalized about using AWS. The same applies to QuickSight. The director, who finalized it, is also the CEO of another company, and over there, he was using QuickSight, and he wanted to implement it here in our company.

For me, it's great. I would rate AWS Backup a nine out of ten. 

We bought it as a service and deployed it. We use it to define each of our instances that we back up like the backup policy and the retention policy.

The replication in the recovery region is the most valuable feature. 

This backup tool does the full backup of the entire snapshot server. I would like to have the option to not do the full server backup. 

We have been using AWS Backup for three years. 

The stability is good. 

Scalability is good. We have around five to six users. 

Technical support responds quickly.

We used a different backup solution from AWS. It was a more user-friendly version. AWS Backup was developed from a command-line application tool. The other solution was a more user-friendly version but it did the same thing.

The initial setup was simple. It took one to two days.

The licensing is not straightforward. You have to pay extra. 

My advice to someone considering this solution is to use it for its disaster recovery capabilities.

I would rate it an eight out of ten. In the next release, I would like that when a backup fails, for it to try again automatically, which is doesn't do now. I would also like to have the ability to do a partial backup of the server. 

We are services vendor for AWS and this is one of the solutions that we implement for our clients. A project that I recently worked on involved a storage gateway and AWS Backup was used for backing up snapshots.

The most valuable feature is the daily incremental site backup.

It is quite easy to use.

If AWS Backup were a hybrid solution that also supported on-premises backups then it would be very helpful, especially if you are doing a migration to the cloud. Ideally, I would like to take an AWS snapshot, move it to a storage vault, and then migrate it to the cloud. That would be a nice strategy and it would mean that I don't need to use two different backup approaches.

I have dealt with AWS technical support and they are very good. They are friendly and we have had good answers from them.

I have used Veeam, which is also capable of doing on-premises backups. This makes it better in terms of a holistic solution.

The complexity of the setup depends on the environment and the requirements. If it is a hybrid deployment with an on-premises component then it can take longer.

We have found that in terms of cloud preference, our customers are more inclined to use AWS. This is one of the reasons that AWS Backup is popular.

Overall, AWS Backup is easy to use and I find that it is a good product.

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

AWS is the primary platform that we use for our internal needs and we are trying to best use whatever comes with it. So far, we are happy with AWS and we have 30% or 40% of our workflows implemented there. For example, we are very big SAP users and we use SAP HANA on AWS. In the future, we expected almost everything to be in AWS, with perhaps 10% of our work in Azure.

We use the AWS Backup as a service to perform native backups and recovery of files and other data. It is also our disaster recovery solution.

The most valuable feature is its ease of use.

One of the limitations of AWS Backup is that it only does file-based copying. It is not as good as some of the external products for handling things like the Oracle Database backups. For example, it lacks the ability to do database backups and differential backups. It is doesn't keep a schedule, and it doesn't keep full track of success and failure. Overall, the functionality is pretty limited, although it does meet our requirements. For places that have deeper requirements, they use different software to do their backups.

In the future, I would like AWS Backup to be more robust and be able to handle database-level backups. It should support Oracle, MySQL, and other types of databases.

Better integration with standard backup management tools that provide control, such as the ability to schedule backups, would be an improvement.

We are been using AWS Backup for more than two years.

This is a stable solution.

AWS Backup is scalable. It is used to back up environments and not really for end-users. In our internal IT departments, we have probably 50 people using it.

We have reached out to AWS support and our technical architecture manager has a relationship with them. We provide constant feedback with respect to how the product is and what improvements need to be done. The developers are aware and they try to improve the features, but it's a slow process.

The initial setup is very simple. There is not much to it. We just need to run some primitive scripts.

The suitability of this solution for backup and recovery depends on the requirements. I would only recommend it for organizations that need a very simple solution.

There is a lot of work that they need to do in the backup space because, at this time, it only does very basic backups. They don't appear to be prioritizing the building of a robust backup solution. It seems that they are more interested in having us work with another vendor, rather than them creating something that is already available.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We primarily use the solution as a backup for snapshots so that the data will not get corrupt or lost. It secures our data for us.

The solution has an effective overwrite feature.

The notifications on the backup and on the mobile app could be more useful. If they could arrange notes or notifications properly and offer services for managing it in our region, it would be helpful for us.

I've been using the solution for about a year and a half.

The solution is stable.

The solution is scalable. Right now, we have five or six people on our team using it. Internally, we're trying to increase usage. We're migrating new and old accounts to it and revamping the organizational structure to utilize more cloud-based servers.

We've opened tickets with Amazon's technical support in the past year and their response time was fast. We've been satisfied with the level of support they've provided.

We didn't use a different solution before Amazon.

The initial setup was straightforward. The deployment for the backup takes 35 to 40 minutes.

We use the public cloud deployment model.

I'd recommend new users implement the solution on a UC server if they use one.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten.