Dell NetWorker Reviews

I primarily use NetWorker to back up over 1,200 virtual machines and over fifty databases. 

NetWorker's most valuable feature is recovery, including the policy-based backups that can be configured.

Currently, the NetWorker server only supports the Windows server bare-metal recovery, so an improvement would be built-in support for Linux and UNIX BMR. In the next release, NetWorker should include support for container backups and Kubernetes.

I've been using NetWorker for over ten years.

NetWorker's stability and reliability are very good, but it still needs monitoring by external software solutions to be maintained properly. NetWorker requires monitoring by the backup administrator to check for failed backups, and it also sometimes has issues pop up that require patching.

NetWorker isn't scalable - you can't add more nodes to it, although you can add some data zones. If you want to add environments to NetWorker, you have to deploy more standalone solutions. 

I'm very satisfied with Dell's technical support. It's very easy to open an SR and get support from them, and whenever we open a request, we get a response, and they ensure our issue is resolved.

The initial setup is a little complex as you have to deploy a virtual machine or  NetWorker on a physical server, depending on your architecture and environment. However, once that operating system is deployed, the NetWorker installation is quite simple. The deployment takes about half an hour, but the integration with the virtual machines and the environment takes two to three weeks.

We used a partner team.

I'd advise anybody thinking of implementing NetWorker to look at their environment, virtualization solutions, and infrastructure requirements and then decide how their environment should be designed. They should also consult with the EMC architect who will be designing the data zones and will be responsible for migrating their environments. I would give NetWorker a rating of seven out of ten.

We have used the solution largely for backups, including all our databases and UX machines.

The solution offers very good backups and has all of the basic features any other solution would have on offer. 

There's tight integration between Data Domain and NetWorker as well. Data Domain is an EMC product. They have very good integration between the two.

The initial setup is simple. 

Its stability is very good. 

The solution can scale. 

The web console could be a lot better. All the customers are dependent on a separate console server. If they want to access NetWorker, they need to have a separate console server to access the management window. I know they've come up with a browser-based management site in order to monitor day-to-day backups and to perform the administration or the setup within the web console. Yet, for the web-based console, they still need to do some improvements.

The documentation could be better. I find the solution is not properly documented. If you want to set up a SharePoint, there are certain steps to be followed, which I have to discover myself, I have to find out myself, which was not found in those installation setup guides. That's something I would suggest. We have already passed this suggestion to Dell EMC, letting them know that there are a few steps missing. The documentation was not properly maintained or properly updated. Previously, the older documentation was good. However, it seems that now, when they update and move forward it's not properly documented.

I've been using the solution for ten years. 

It's stable. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable and the performance is good.

The solution can scale. We only need to get an additional license if we want to do a scaling of our infrastructure. We just need to buy the capacity we need. We can just upgrade the RAM in case it needs additional resources also. We can even deploy another NetWorker server. 

Scaling is purely based on capacity. You don't have to buy it per server either as most of the servers are virtualized. As you have the socket license and the capacity license, then you can actually deploy a new server.

We have more than 1,000 users on the solution right now. 

We've used EMC, Veeam, and Rubrik.

We do have Rubrik and I set up Rubrik a few months back, and it's working fine. 

EMC, in terms of cost, is more expansive. I would definitely go for NetWorker instead as, when you compare it with the Veritas NetBackup, NetWorker is cheaper. Rubrik is cheaper than NetWorker, however, with  Rubrik, we're only using it to back up our VMs. For the other kinds of workloads, such as Exchange or SharePoint, we are still using NetWorker.

The initial setup is not complex. It's straightforward. Once you have all your prerequisites ready, then you are good to go.

As integrators, we are able to handle the initial setup. We handled the setup ourselves mostly in-house. 

I don't have any information on the ROI.

We'll have the solution for about five years. I can't say how much it will cost in total. 

We are users and integrators as well. 

My advice would be to have, once you have started to use it, something more on the Windows-based tools. If you see the commands, all those commands are as if you're running a query. The underlying structure of NetWorker is a skill database, so it's actually running on a skill database. Mostly you'll be running some queries, or querying commands to get the reports using the command prompt. For someone who is familiar with Windows, they'll find it very easy to use.

I'd rate the solution a nine out of ten. 

I've been using this solution for backups and restoration.

Backup reliability for this solution is fine. It's good.

Dell EMC NetWorker is still not mature, compared to its competitors. For example: the TSM (Tivoli Storage Manager) of IBM is very accurate in error logs, and it is very rare to get failure alerts when using the TSM. It's fast and reliable which I didn't see from Dell EMC NetWorker. Another example is the Veritas which I also have experience with. Though Veritas is lower in level compared to the TSM, Veritas is more user-friendly than the TSM.

All features for Dell EMC NetWorker are good, but they are not something to be happy about.

Sometimes this solution shows some errors, e.g. related to open files. It is based on Java, which is very bad. There's so many issues not reflecting what's really happening in the background.

Reporting is very bad in Dell EMC NetWorker. It's also very difficult to get whatever you need based on the backup time duration.

Dell EMC NetWorker has so many versions in a short span of time, which contain a lot of bugs that need to be fixed because each upgrade has its own issues. For every new update of this solution, bugs get fixed, but something new, e.g. a new bug comes up in each version which needs to be fixed. 

I've been using Dell EMC NetWorker for four years.

This solution is 95% stable.

This solution is scalable. It's easy to scale. The only thing that matters in terms of scalability is the storage for the data domain, e.g. adding the disk and another unit, and that's it.

Support, especially from the Middle East region, is very bad. Sometimes support is good, but it's usually bad.

Setting up Dell EMC NetWorker is not complex. The setup was straightforward.

We implemented this solution internally, with guidance from the Dell team.

The price for this solution is cheaper than other products. The price is the only reason we are renewing, otherwise we'll be moving to Veeam.

I evaluated IBM TSM (Tivoli Storage Manager) and Veritas.

We deployed Dell EMC NetWorker to 300 machines. It took us six to seven months to stabilize all issues during the upgrade and complete the deployment.

We only did maintenance for the upgrade and for versions such as the kernel, or the code slash code upgrade, or the version of the software. No major maintenance was needed for this solution.

There are two users in our company working with Dell EMC NetWorker. The backup is a daily process, while administration is not done on a daily basis. For checking and reviewing errors and failures, this solution is used daily.

Usage will depend on the company: how much activity they have and the types of activity they have, e.g. registration or development through IT.

The main reasons we're thinking of switching from Dell EMC NetWorker to another product include the reporting, support, and the bugs. There are so many issues we find annoying which require additional resources.

My advice to people looking into implementing this solution is that for big environments, it's so complicated. For example, for a clustered environment, you have a clustered environment for Oracle RAC, where you have so many firewalls in between, but Dell EMC NetWorker is not mature enough to handle that kind of environment and setup. Oracle RAC works well in big environments, but not this solution. Dell EMC NetWorker would be good for smaller environments where it won't be heavily used. We are an airline company with 300 machines, but we're not comparable to a big company like Google.

My rating for Dell EMC NetWorker is a seven out of ten.

We use Dell NetWorker in the banking sector.

It optimizes Backup and Recovery procedures, making them exceptionally swift.

The types of data and systems we predominantly safeguard with Dell NetWorker include VMs. It enables us to protect infrastructure, bare metal clients, databases, and applications.

Dell NetWorker itself cannot replicate, hence relying on Data Domain for replicating data and backup configurations. 

Integrating Dell NetWorker with other Dell products can bring significant advantages to both our organization and our clients. Utilizing NetWorker enhances our understanding of the backup environment and workload.

The feature that offers the greatest benefits in ensuring data integrity is its backup capability. This feature significantly enhances speed and efficiency, which is crucial for our operations. Additionally, NetWorker can be installed on Linux systems, and it offers a virtual appliance option, which enhances security measures.

There's an issue with the management environment. Regarding improvements for NetWorker, I believe implementing cross-platform restore functionality is essential. This feature would allow for compatibility with various backup software solutions, similar to Veeam. Additionally, enhancing features related to virtualization infrastructure would be beneficial.

I have been working with it for four years.

It exhibits remarkable stability. One of our clients has utilized it for over a decade, encountering only a single issue during that time. I would rate it eight out of ten.

I would rate its scalability capabilities seven out of ten. Our clients are mostly large enterprise organizations.

I would rate the customer service and support nine out of ten.

Positive

I would rate the initial setup six out of ten because technical expertise is required for the process.

Deployment typically takes approximately thirty minutes if you are familiar with the required steps.

The pricing for the telecom, government, and banking sectors is relatively affordable. Dell offers bundled packages, making it cost-effective, especially when considering the inclusion of DTS data protection.

Before implementation, I recommend investigating to determine the types and sizes of workloads, as well as the expectations of their usage. Overall, I would rate it eight out of ten.

I am using Dell NetWorker for backing up mission-critical business databases.

The most valuable feature of Dell NetWorker is its quick configuration and handling of large databases.

Dell NetWorker could improve the GUI to include rack recovery.

I have been using Dell NetWorker for a few months.

The solution is highly stable.

We have four engineers using this solution in my company and we plan to increase our usage.

Dell NetWorker is a scalable solution.

The support from the vendor was quick.

I used IBM Spectrum Protect prior to Dell NetWorker. We choose to use Dell NetWorker because it has quicker recovery time objectives and the integration into DD is a lot better.

The initial setup of Dell NetWorker is straightforward. The process took a few days to complete.

We had some assistance when we did the implementation. However, after a while, we can do it ourselves.

We have observed a return on investment by utilizing Dell NetWorker, and we deem it a worthwhile expenditure compared to not having the solution.

The solution follows a subscription model for licensing. We pay annually to use the solution and the price is high.

I would recommend this solution to others.

I rate Dell NetWorker an eight out of ten.

We run a software-based service. You need a network of software, and for that, you need one physical server with the connectivity of fiber cables and fiber cords. The server configuration has to be high.

I like that it's stable and scalable. 

It could be more user-friendly. 

I have been handling Dell NetWorker for about a year and a half. 

Dell NetWorker is a stable product. 

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate its stability at seven.

Dell NetWorker is a scalable product.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate its scalability at seven.

I have a capacity-based license, but I don't know the exact cost of that license.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Dell NetWorker a seven.

The management of Dell Networker is quite cumbersome because we have to operate on a separate interface for reporting backup jobs. In addition, we have different interfaces, so we recommend it be consolidated into a single interface for all its operations. For example, my team and I have to hop on other interfaces and different applications to manage Dell Networker. Hence, it becomes pretty cumbersome for operations.

We have been using the solution for six years.

The solution is scalable, and approximately 1,000 users utilize the solution in our organization.

We have had a good experience with customer service and support. I rate them an eight out of ten.

Positive

A partner did the initial setup, and we shared the venue. The setup was not difficult because we outsourced it to a consultant. So that consultant came in and deployed the solution for us.

The pricing could be more economical for organizations, so organizations like ours can adopt and utilize it to its full potential. However, at the moment, we have challenges with the pricing as it is quite costly.

I rate the solution an eight out of ten. The solution is good, but it can be improved by consolidating multiple interfaces into one.

We provide this solution to our customers and we are partners with Dell. I'm an information consultant. 

The valuable features are scalability, virtual environment protection, and the migration to OneCloud feature. All the features are excellent. 

This is an expensive solution, in addition to which, the interface is not user-friendly. We're sometimes looking for a feature on one interface and it's on another. It would be helpful if they would centralize everything on one interface.

I've been using this solution for two years. 

The solution is stable. 

The solution is scalable.

Dell support is the best in the world. 

The initial setup is very complex but once that's done, the rest is easy. We've deployed this solution to 10 customers. 

NetWorker is a very expensive solution. 

I usually compare NetWorker with NetBackup which comes with IBM Spectrum Connect. I think NetBackup is a better solution. In our country, it's only the communication operators who use this solution because they have more data to manage every day.

This solution is suitable for enterprise-size organizations. I usually only provide NetWorker as an option if the customer asks for it. If it were my choice, I would recommend Veeam or IBM Spectrum Protect.

I rate the product six out of 10.