Azure Site Recovery Reviews

Azure Site Recovery helps to save costs. 

The tool should improve synchronization. 

I have been using the solution for two weeks. 

Azure Site Recovery is a stable product. 

The solution is a scalable product. My company has three to four users for the product. You need one to two technical resources to handle the deployment. 

The tool's deployment is straightforward and takes around three weeks to complete. 

We did the tool's deployment in-house. 

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case of this solution is for disaster recovery. I'm an enterprise architect. 

The product provides generally good performance, from protection to production to failover to data recovery.

I'd like to see more integration with other platforms.  

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

This product is very stable. 

The solution is definitely scalable although the level of scalability depends on your country. Not all countries have good capacity.

The initial setup is very straightforward. The product deployment took about a day but the synchronization of the data takes longer. The deployment process involved assessing workloads, integrating the on-prem environment with Azure, sizing the bandwidth, planning for the connectivity and connecting everything up to Azure, and then establishing the base landing zone, the replicas and then replicating the data. We then validated and tested. The implementation requires systems engineers. 

We've seen a marked ROI in the simplifying of processes and reliability. Site recovery is cheaper than building a second data center. 

Licensing costs are consumption-based and although it's not cheap, it's not excessively expensive. 

I recommend this solution for disaster recovery if you're running a production environment that you need to recover very quickly. Whether this solution is suitable for your organization really depends on your business requirements and budget.

I rate this solution nine out of 10. 

We back up our site to it and use it for a VR. We are using the most up to date version of this solution.

The most useful thing is that it provides a snapshot of your environment in about 15 minutes. 

It is stable, and it always works. It is also scalable and easy to set up.

It is for site-to-site replication. When something goes wrong on your site, you only get 15 minutes before it also goes wrong on your replicated site. There should be some way to be able to say that we want to restore it, but we want to restore it to the version from yesterday. It should support versioning.

I would also like to see real-time scanning for advanced threat protection, more straightforward billing, and quicker turnaround on the tech support.

I have been using this solution for three years.

It always works.

It is scalable. Currently, we have only one user who uses it.

I don't work with tech support, but they can have a quicker turnaround on the tech support.

It was pretty straightforward. It was just installing the clients and setting up your site recovery. You can also use the documentation. 

Our network or systems engineer maintains it.

It should have more straightforward billing. The billing was what got funky. It was really cheap. We would pay based on the usage. We paid around $225 a month for site-to-site replication.

The best advice that I could give is to just research what Azure Site Recovery is for. It is not a backup solution. So, even though you have enabled Site Recovery, you still need backups.

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a nine out of ten.

I primarily use Site Recovery to back up our site server.

Site Recovery's most valuable features include its user-friendly console and the ease of migration.

Site Recovery could improve its communication of when new features are available.

I've been using Site Recovery for a year.

I would rate Site Recovery's stability eight out of ten - we've had some issues but only infrequently.

Site Recovery's scalability could be improved.

Microsoft has the best technical support available.

Previously, I used Veaam Backup.

The initial setup was straightforward.

Site Recovery has given us a good return on our investment.

I would recommend Site Recovery for single and larger companies. I would give Site Recovery a rating of eight out of ten.

We haven't really found any of the features to be valuable. It's around five years behind other market leaders. We prefer to use VMware products for site recovery software.

We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor.

I have been using Site Recovery since 2015. 

It is a very stable product and very scalable. If you've got existing technology it is very very difficult to move across.

I would rate their technical support as six out of ten.

We use VMware Site Recovery Manager. 

The initial setup is fairly easy. It's feature-diluted. It's quite easy to set up. You do need support from Microsoft though if you're going to get the most out of it. Their support isn't so good. We prefer to use our partners. We've gotten little support and little help from them. They're not as knowledgeable as our own partners. 

We've invested nearly 20 million pounds in Azure and it's been an absolute disaster for us.

We've got three full-time administrators, which is quite high. That supports 10,000 people but we are 95% of our services actually in VMware.

In the next release, I would like to see better block-level recovery. It is key. Bare metal recovery and block-level recovery. 

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a four out of ten. If you start from scratch, it's fine. 

Primary use case really depends on the client. The product can be used by insurance companies, hospitals, healthcare professionals. We mainly use the product for backup and disaster recovery and it's suitable for small and medium enterprise companies. 
It's used occasionally, not on a daily basis. We are in partnership with Microsoft and I work as a senior sales solution architect. 

One of the valuable features is failure restores. 

Improvement could be made on the pricing model. It could be brought in line with the competitive ranges in the market 

Additional features could include more of a backup and recovery. We'd like to see the AIX operating system added into it. It's more virtual right now.

I've been using the product for the last two or three years. 

Stability really depends on the situation, sometimes it's better and other times it's worse. It's generally fine. 

Scalability is good in this solution. 

The initial setup depends on the kind of control infrastructure that the clients have and that determines whether the setup is simple or complex. Azure doesn't have its own hardware for on-prem which makes it more complex for the reseller or as a solution for companies like us,  because we have to go and talk to different vendors for hardware. It means you then have to go and  buy the licenses or OS for everything and it becomes complex for someone who is selling it to the customer because there are several elements that need to be taken into consideration. We provide installation services and that can take a week or two. 

There are different components in pricing and for each and every component you have to check the box and you have to look for options - check if they have a front end or back end kind of licensing, those are different types of licensing that can possibly be made simpler and probably cheaper. 

We looked at Dell EMC but I think we went with Site Recovery because it fits better with cloud and they're moving a lot of their workload to cloud like Azure, and want something that is seamlessly integrated. It also provides one vendor whereas with Dell you then need to go to Azure and if a problem isn't resolved then who is responsible. 

I would rate this product an eight out of 10. 

We primarily use the solution for disaster recovery for our organization.

The solution is very easy to use.

The approach the solution takes to data recovery is very good. We can fail-over from production and the disaster recovery aspect of the solution is quite seamless. There are a few configurations that need to happen, however, once it's up it works quite well.

There have been issues with replication. 

It would be helpful if error logging was handled more effectively.

When it runs, it runs well but when it doesn't run, the solution needs to make it clearer as to why and what the troubleshooting process is. All this would be possible if the error logging was streamlined a bit.

I've only been using the solution for about six months. It's still quite new to me.

We haven't faced any crashes, bugs, or glitches. I would consider the solution to be quite stable.

The solution is easily scalable.

We're pushing about 40 servers into the cloud for disaster recovery using site recovery.

I can only vouch for the actual support we've gotten from Microsoft and that was very good. We have no complaints there; the support was very helpful when it came to handling the issue that we did have.

The initial setup is very straightforward. We didn't have any issues with any complexities.

We implemented in phases. In full, it took us about two or three months to deploy the solution. However, if a company is simply looking to do one or two servers, it's only going to take a couple of hours, or maybe a couple of days to go to the cloud. 

I'd estimate it would take about a month, for your average environment (a small to medium-sized environment) to deploy onto Site Recovery.

We're a partner as well as a customer.

We would definitely recommend the product. 

I would caution, or highlight rather, that if anyone is collecting resources they need to confirm that they're all configuring it correctly so that it doesn't generate unexpected costs because of a context that may be incorrect.

I'd rate the solution nine out of ten.

We use Azure Site Recovery primarily for disaster recovery to Azure or from Azure, while Veeam is used for data center recovery.

It’s native to Azure and does exactly what it’s designed to do—recover one site to another without creating all the VMs on that site. This helps reduce costs on the secondary site.

I have been using Azure Site Recovery as a partner for two years.

There is no issues with stability.

It is suitable for large enterprises. It is scalable. These businesses have around 500 users. 

Support is wonderful.

It is easy to configure.

It is cost-effective.

The team conducted a thorough analysis before choosing Azure Site Recovery. They likely considered integration costs and various other factors.

It seems to be seamless and is working perfectly. They’re integrating it with Azure Stack Hub, which we’ve also deployed as an on-premises solution.

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