Azure Backup Reviews

Azure Backup is very simple to use and user-friendly. From the technical side, features like the tenant and the restoration part are much better. It's a Microsoft tool, and all the info we have based on the VMs will be built on the Azure platform. It's easy for us to do the backup in its OEM tool.

Azure Backup has some drawbacks. We can't have the granular level restoration, particularly for the Azure files. Sometimes, indexing doesn't happen in the Azure files. That's why we are keen to have a solution that can consider all the applications, all the OS, and the legacy applications.

One of the disadvantages of Azure Backup is that it doesn't have a MAC backup. In Azure, we cannot take the MAC backup for Mac devices.

Azure Backup's licensing model is very challenging because it doesn't give a clear picture. Whenever we go to the vendor or the OEM to buy some of the workloads, we have to take everything. We have to pay for the VMs and the storage in the Azure platform. Hence, the licensing model should be very simple for the end user to get things easily.

I have been working with Azure Backup for three years.

I rate Azure Backup a nine out of ten for stability.

I rate Azure Backup an eight and a half out of ten for scalability. Two thousand five hundred users use the solution in my company.

We have partner support from Azure Backup. Usually, we can see support in the stipulated time. We get the support based on the SLA timeline.

Positive

Since Azure Backup is a very user-friendly solution, its initial setup is very simple and shouldn't be a challenge for anyone.

We implemented the solution through our technical team.

We do not have any additional costs for Azure Backup.

Sometimes the solution has a huge bandwidth. However, it lags and does not completely perform when it has low bandwidth.

We have around 11 people involved in the maintenance of Azure Backup. Out of these 11 people, five people are from the solution architecture, and the rest are tech support partners.

Overall, I rate Azure Backup an eight out of ten.

We use this solution for across-the-board data protection. That includes VMs, and storage pools for basically any level of recoverability whether for files, storage pools or transactional data. I'm an enterprise architect. 

Backup helps quite a bit in terms of immediate recovery and immediate restoration. It's very helpful when it comes to data corruption, file damage, or inadvertent deletions. The other component is the relatively broad data protection we get across the entire Azure landing zone. It backs up efficiently and reports better than a lot of traditional tools. 

I think the extensibility onto hybrid environments needs a bit of tweaking. It's great in the cloud but when you're on-prem it requires quite a bit of infrastructure in terms of Azure ARC and bringing it back. 

I've been using this solution for around four years. 

The solution is quite stable and reliable. We've had a few little nominal outages, but nothing terrible. It's much more reliable than any of the traditional on-premise kind of private cloud environments. 

The solution is very scalable for us but scalability depends on your location.There are no problems accessing Azure in Europe or North America but if you're looking at the newer regions, they're slower in adding the same capability. I used Azure in Dublin because there was no Azure in Africa. When they turned on Azure in South Africa we had to switch to that but we only got 50% of the functionality. South Africa should have been brought to the same level before we had to make the move from Dublin. It's taken us backward. 

The initial setup is fairly standard and not too complex. Deployment generally takes a few days depending on the size. Anything to do with data retention takes more time as we have to define the backup schedules and retention and those kinds of things. Validating the backups is quick and efficient but determining which data we need to keep and for how long, takes time. Those are all issues related to the customer.

Deployment steps are basically about carrying out an inventory of the workloads. You want to guard the types of protection you're applying specifically to databases versus different systems and services, and then how that ties into full recoverability. That would take a week maximum in the worst case and we do that internally. 

We usually have two systems engineers involved in maintenance. Different projects require different capacities.

ROI is very good as long as you modernize your solutions and then it brings quite a saving. If you don't upgrade to cloud, and you just do a lift and shift, it'll kill you with the cost.

Licensing costs are consumption-based so the more storage we eat, the more data we protect, the greater the cost.

It's important to ensure that the capabilities you require are available in your region. Feature availability per region is the most important thing. You can't do a design for Azure in North America and then think that it's going to work everywhere. Azure is not consistent so you may be forced to buy third-party products that you didn't budget for.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution as a backup.

With on-premises servers, you can have a long-term archival sitting on public clouds, like Azure. That is also one of the very good use cases where you're avoiding all the tape requirements for your long-term archival. 

It's a native solution provided by Microsoft. It solves the needs we have. We are using it at most places, unless, and until there is some specific requirement where there's a database or something, which you're getting out of the box from Azure Backup. That's when we go for other third-party backup solutions. Otherwise, for the VM backups and all of that, it's a great product. It's one of the best solutions for backups.

It's easy to use. 

The storage cost is not too much. 

It gives you what you would like to have from a basic solution, like machine backup, or for your snapshots. Everything can be done from the platform itself. 

The management interface is very intuitive and familiar. It makes it a lot easier for anyone to manage it or to actually work on it.

The integration with the record database and integration with other applications will be good, especially with the database piece. MySQL and Oracle are very widely used databases and Azure Backup doesn't have tight integration with them. It only provides the backup of the disc and the virtual machine and associated data, however, it doesn't provide you an application of their backup for non-Microsoft products, especially. That is where SQL Server, which is a Microsoft database, provides a good integration for the initial backup in MySQL which is a widely used database solution. They should actually provide that or you can handle integration with those databases as well.

The most important thing is integration with third-party products. That could be one of the best features. Whenever we have to look for databases or specific applications, that's when things get complicated and where third parties, like Win Backup, Symantec, and other backup solutions come in. The most important thing they can do to improve is to cover at least industry standard databases first.

I've been using the solution for seven or eight years now. 

The backup stability is good.

Scalability is fine. For any mid-size org, it is a good solution. We have done it for close to 2,000 servers, so it is working fine.

In terms of tech support, I'm disappointed with support. It's not like earlier days. Earlier Microsoft tech support used to be one of the best. Now that's not the case. You have long queues and you have to wait a bit longer compared to earlier. What I can say is there are a lot of articles, and there are self-help resources. Those are available. That actually helps in troubleshooting. You do not always have to open a ticket unless and until there is something really critical. You just don't get a timely response.

Neutral

I have used AWS. Azure is a more mature product. AWS didn't used to have a backup solution. 

It's easy to deploy.

We have a deployment team. There is usually very few people dealing with the implementation. You might have eight to ten guys doing the migration and other things. Recently, we did a project where there were close to 1,000 servers that have to be moved to the public cloud and we implemented Azure Backup for all of them. It didn't take much of our time since the management and the interface are very easy and you don't have much to do over there. 

It's a slow process. You're not moving all of them at one shot. We'll do 15 to 20 servers in a batch, which we are doing based on the applications. One application, we are going to move at a given time. If there are 15 to 20 servers within one particular application, it takes hardly a few hours to go and do everything. However, if there are many, many applications, it will take time.

We handle the implementation for our clients. 

The ROI is good based on the cost itself. The upfront cost itself is less and it includes your licensing and hosting and everything. There are no other industry-standard backups like it. The licensing costs are very high and you need it in front of all of that. It is hosted on the cloud. Even if you go with something which is hosted on the cloud, the license cost is high. If you compare it with other costs of solutions, Microsoft has done a good job of providing a native backup solution with very affordable pricing. 

The cost for Azure backup is purely based on the size of the data and the virtual machine as well as the number of virtual machines. It's around $10 to $15 per month per virtual machine, along with something extra based on the size of the data. It covers 500 GBs or something like that. If you go beyond that for a virtual machine, you will have to pay extra.

We're Microsoft partners and we do have many customers who are using the Microsoft platform.

We are always using the latest version of the solution. 

It's on-cloud and in some servers on-premises, which we are taking from the backup cloud. It's mostly for the infrastructure sitting on the cloud.

The solution should be an eight out of ten.

Potential users should actually look for compatibility. With any service that you talk about in a public cloud, one should first understand the requirement and then they should do some sort of research or they should, if they're new to it, have a look into the compatibility and the articles. Those are provided by Microsoft in terms of basic requirements or constraints that they have. They have a lot of constraints around. You have to be very careful which geography it is. What is the cost and what kinds of constraints do they have in terms of compatibility with any operating system or application? Those are the four or five things that one should look at before considering it as a solution or implementation.

We have implemented a secondary contingency plan for most clients, where the primary infrastructure is on-premise, and the containers are hosted in the cloud. Some clients are currently migrating their primary solutions to the cloud. In these cases, the servers run on Azure, and Azure Backup provides backup server services. Additionally, we have implemented Azure SQL and Azure Intune for these clients.

The daily backups have become easier since we no longer need to handle large backups. The use of Azure Backup as a service has proven reliable and simplified our daily operations. Previously, we relied on LTO backups for data retention, but after migrating to the cloud and adopting Azure Backup, the delivery process has become smoother.

The simplicity of the whole operation is the most valuable feature of the solution.

I believe more options could be available to understand better what's happening in the system. Additionally, automating the client updates and connector updates would be beneficial. Updating the connector from time to time can be challenging, and it could be made more transparent and straightforward for users. Moreover, another drawback lies in the time it takes to test full data backup recovery. Deploying a full recovery takes longer. We need to allocate a longer period for complete data recovery to establish the environment again.

I have been using the solution for the past four years.

I rate the stability of the solution as a nine out of ten.

In a fully cloud-based solution, scalability is good, and I rate it a ten out of ten. On the other hand, for an on-premise setup, there may be challenges related to recovery and the potential impact on the Internet link's bandwidth. Therefore, I rate it an eight out of ten.

I believe Microsoft could improve its backup support.

Neutral

The initial setup was easy.

The pricing of the solution does not depend on the service itself but rather on the minimum data volume encountered. This pricing approach seems reasonable and is on par with other competitors in the market. It is a good solution for on-premise needs because it is more cost-effective. When evaluating the overall financial expenditure, including operational costs and the impact on the IT team, Azure Backup is a favorable choice.

I recommend it; however, I want to emphasize the importance of thoroughly checking if the cloud backup solution aligns with the required time frame for recovery. Overall, I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

Our primary use case is for backups.

The solution helped us use R2 RBO to back up frequently and avoid losing data if we had system issues.

The most valuable features are the integrations because we are using Azure Cloud, which backs it up with all the Azure components.

Azure Backup is constantly improving its features. However, it can be further improved by continuously meeting its compliance requirements.

We have been using the solution for three years.

The solution is stable.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten.

We use Azure Backup to backup VMs.

The most valuable feature of Azure Backup is its ease of use and good integration with other Azure services.

The Azure Backup support for on-premises service is limited.

The file-level restore procedure should be more straightforward.

I have been using Azure Backup for approximately three years.

Azure Backup is stable.

Azure Backup can scale and it is easy to do.

The initial setup of Azure Backup is straightforward. It took 15 minutes to do the deployment.

I rate the initial setup of Azure Backup a four out of five.

I did the implementation of the solution.

I rate Azure Backup a seven out of ten.

We use Commvault for on premises clients and the Azure Backup for cloud-based clients.

This solution is easy to configure and restore. It is a Microsoft product so is easily compatible with other solutions.

The restoration of permissions is a functionality that could be improved. If I want to restore permissions, I should be able to do this. 

Secondly, there is a limitation of 99 files restores per day which means that we can't complete a huge file restore. We would like Azure to increase the number of the possible file restorations.

I have been using this solution for five years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution besides the limitations on file restorations.

It takes a long time to resolve support tickets with the Microsoft support team. They could offer faster resolution of tickets. I would rate them a two out of five. 

Neutral

We use Azure Backup alongside Commvault Hyperscale X. The latter offers a compression ratio that is much higher compared to Azure Backup. There are no limitations on file restorations using Commvault. 

Azure Backup is free and we are only charged for storage. Commvault is definitely costly compared to Azure Backup.

The initial setup of this solution is straightforward, 

Azure offers competitive pricing and charges us only for the storage space that we use. 

We generally use the solution for VM backups. 

With a couple of buttons, we can configure a VM for a backup and use the wall service, the storage wall service, pretty seamlessly. 

From a day-to-day operation perspective, the installation and configuration of the Azure Backup and the backup timing are great. It offers a non-intrusive backup - like a snapshot type of backup. This way, we don't see any impact when running the backup and the job runs without any problem unless the VM host itself is having some problems. 

From the stability aspect of it, the execution aspect, I don't see any issues.

I didn't see any kind of major flaws or anything. The only thing I would say that could be improved is the reporting. It can be a little more customized or something like that. Maybe they need a little bit more on the dashboard view. The reporting and governance can be a little more fine-tuned.

I've used the solution for 18 months or so.

The solution is stable. The performance is great There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. 

We haven't really used technical support in the past. We went with them due to the fact that it's not a complicated use case for us, so we haven't really seen any issue. We haven't really dealt with Azure Backup-related troubleshooting or anything.

I work for a client who pays for the solution. My understanding is the costs vary year to year. I don't really have any visibility, however. 

If you're hosting a majority of your platform in Azure, this solution should be okay. Azure Backup is probably the easiest solution to with, rather than bringing another third party into the mix. As a consolidated solution, the Azure Backup will work well - if your native cloud platform is Azure.

I'd rate the solution seven out of ten.