HPE Zerto Software Reviews

Our primary use case currently is for replicating virtual machines on a production site and for backups. We also use it for onsite cloning, and we have a license that enables us to do that.

We don't use Zerto in the cloud at the moment. 

The tool gave us a better way to respond to any problems on the production side and improved how we can recover. The recovery capability is the best part of Zerto.

The solution reduced our recovery time objective (RTO) and improved performance on the IO by around 10%. When we implement failovers and synchronization to VMs with databases, we see a marked increase in performance.         

The solution helped reduce our downtime. Before we implemented Zerto, my organization did a recovery that took four hours. Since implementing, the last time we did a recovery, it took one hour, so the solution makes recovery significantly faster. The cost of three hours of downtime to my company would be very high.   

The way we can use checkpoints from each VM to restore them is an excellent feature, and the replication is great.

Zerto is easy to use, and it saved us five times in three years; on those occasions, we had problems with our VMs, and we used the product to roll back to a functional state or for failover, which resolved our issues. 

Regarding near-synchronous replication, Zerto is the best application we have right now. We could get another solution to do the same job, but from a design point of view, Zerto is an excellent tool for replication and synchronization, and we don't have a problem with it.

The IT could be better; we have sectioned areas and databases for iOS, Windows, and Linux. Because the solution is centralized, each computer has the VMs from every section running.

The solution is very expensive. 

I've been using Zerto for three years. 

Zerto is highly stable, and I rate it ten out of ten for stability. 

We didn't have to scale the solution, so I can't speak to the scalability. 

I give the technical support full marks; it's simple to open a case and get a quick response from the support staff. We rarely experience issues requiring us to contact support as it is.

Positive

We didn't previously use another solution of this kind. 

The initial setup was straightforward; it wasn't complex at all. It was very simple to install and set up the replication, more so than other solutions. 

The replication functionality is very user-friendly, so that was the easiest part. At the same time, the security aspect of the solution, integrating with our firewalls etc., was the most challenging element of the deployment.

We carried out the implementation via an in-house team. 

The cost is one of the only drawbacks of Zerto because it's very high, and the overall impact of the solution on our organization is relatively low. This is why we are trying to figure out if another product could fulfill the same role for cheaper.

We are currently evaluating Veeam, and how that would fit into our system, as many of our clients use it, so we wonder if it may be a better option for us.

I rate the solution ten out of ten. 

My advice to potential customers is to carefully determine the requirements for such a solution and how Zerto fulfills those. Some solutions do the same job for cheaper, so considering the price has to factor into the cost-benefit analysis.

Our main use case for this solution is the data center migration. We are in the process of moving from our legacy data center and all the VMs into our new data center.

In the future, we would like to look more into disaster recovery using Zerto but that's a much longer process and we are still looking into it.

The speed of recovery with Zerto is at least five to ten times faster. It helped us reduce downtime during migrations. There would've been a lot more downtime had we done a standard migration across data centers, powering everything down. This downtime would have cost our company millions.

The ease of use and simplicity in moving things without having to do a cross vCenter V-motions has been most valuable. It saves time and effort and it eliminates mistakes. This project would've been years if not for Zerto. We completed it in months instead of years.

The licensing is confusing and complicated.

I have been using this solution for two years.

This is a stable solution. 

This is a scalable solution. We used it for our biggest data center and it handled it just fine. We haven't personally had to scale it up, but if we needed to, we definitely could.

Support has been pretty good. I would rate it a nine out of ten. 

I personally have not used other solutions other than just what's built into VMware. When comparing the VMware native solution versus Zerto, it's night and day. It's much simpler and straightforward to set up.

The initial setup is straightforward. It is streamlined with simple instructions. Anybody can do it as long as they understand their infrastructure.

We had a contractor that we brought in to help us with it. 

We have seen return in our investment with Zerto due to the speed and usability and being able to do this huge project with limited hiccups.

I would advise others that the cost of this solution is justified based on the value you receive. 

I would rate Zerto a nine out of ten. 

We use it mostly for VMs that are hosting client-facing applications and mostly client databases. We replicate 100 servers; we have 100 protected VMs.

We've never had any major headaches with the virtual-protection groups. They seem to work exactly as they should. If there's ever an issue with replication, we know right away, so it's all been very reliable.

Zerto is much easier to use than Veeam when you compare the two in terms of ease of use. Everything is very straightforward and simple in the Web Client. It's very clear if something is wrong, and everything in the Web Client works great. In Veeam, it's a little more complex; I find myself having to look through long error messages when a job fails. Whereas with Zerto, if I see a red VPG I can click on it. I would then know exactly which VM is having an issue, and I can try to troubleshoot the issue.

The time between releases is too long. Zerto doesn't seem to really keep up with the products with which they need to be compatible. For instance, the 9.5 updates 3 took about 90 days to come out after the latest version of vCenter 7.0 update 3 was released.

We were facing a vulnerability, so we had to choose between patching our vCenter to address that vulnerability, which would break the Zerto operability, or leaving it as is with a potential vulnerability. That was really the main issue we ever faced with Zerto.

I've been working with Zerto for the past three or so years, but my company used it before I started working there.

Zerto is very stable. I've never had an issue related to stability with Zerto, and anytime we have had any potential issues, we get alerts from Zerto. It has always been a simple fix. Also, the issue has never had to do with the platform; it's always been a VM that was powered off or deleted.

Technical support has been pretty sufficient. I've only had one or two cases ever that weren't related to looking for a release date, but I've had pretty good success with them so far.

I would give technical support a rating of eight out of ten. They've never particularly impressed me, but they've always done their job.

Positive

I was not present for the initial setup, but I deployed Zerto Virtual Manager. It was pretty straightforward. You walk through the wizard, and if you have all your networks on the server and everything is done correctly, you can start to build VPGs right away.

If you have all of the network and firewall rules already in place, you could probably stand up a new one in 45 minutes.

It's a pretty set-it-and-forget-it type of tool, and it's very reliable. So, I would rate it an eight on a scale from one to ten.

We have three locations. We replicate circularly around all those locations for all our VMs. This is for DR.

We don't have to spend a whole lot of time worrying about DR and whether or not we are covered. Zerto just works. As it is replicating, we don't need to spend a whole lot of time with it. That is a huge benefit as far as daily management.

Luckily, we haven't actually had to do a full failover. We have tested it many times, and it proves out okay, but we don't have to spend a lot of time managing it.

Our insurance companies provide assistance with staff or boots on the ground. Whereas, using Zerto has allowed us to act very quickly with just our current team. We can fail over and switch over to our disaster recovery site, instead of having to bring in a bigger team.

It is amazingly simple to use, monitor, look at, and utilize. It is great for that.

We would like more mobile options. If we are at a restaurant or out and about in our normal daily lives, we would like to be able to interface via our mobiles.

I have been using it for about five years.

Scalability is simple. If you just add more virtual managers, then you are good to go.

Our customer rep, success manager, and engineer are great.

Luckily, I haven't had to use the technical support that often. The times that I have, it has been fantastic. They quickly had me where I needed to be, which is top-notch and good.

I would rate them as eight or nine out of 10. Nobody is perfect.

Positive

It gives us peace of mind. Before we had disaster recovery and long-term retention protection against ransomware, it was one of those things that kept us up at night.

We previously used VMware Site Recovery Manager (SRM) and Veeam for backup. Zerto is way better and more friendly. Zerto's interface, simplicity, and reliability are definitely better than SRM.

When we were using SRM, it didn't have a web interface. Zerto's web interface makes it easier to navigate. When we used SRM, it was an actual application. It was a bit clunkier and a lot more difficult to use. However, it has been awhile, so it might not be a fair comparison at this point.

The initial deployment was pretty simple. The implementation took less than half a day. It has been awhile, but it was very seamless, easy, and did not take very long. We were up and running pretty quickly.

Zerto was involved with the initial deployment. We paid for their Professional Services, who walked us through the whole thing. It was very simple.

Our technology committee established an RPO and RTO. We beat those times with Zerto. We have a 30-minute RTO and we can recover within seconds. We have far exceeded any expectations so far.

From the simple point of not having to worry about whether or not we are protected in the event of ransomware or disaster, it is worth the money.

The pricing seems fair.

We looked at other solutions around five years ago.

I would recommend buying it. It is easy and simple. It works. It is all the things that any administrator would want. You don't need to spend a lot of time messing with it and you can sleep at night.

I would rate this solution as eight out of 10 because nothing is perfect.

I've used it for a temporary migration. We had to shut down a data center and we moved some database servers over to a disaster recovery site. We then did the maintenance at the data center and brought them back.

We're using it only for on-prem and we use it to replicate from our onsite data center to a co-location, but there is a fiber connection between the two, so it isn't an internet-based replication.

In that migration instance we had six terabytes of data that we needed to protect and bring online quickly. We had a replication going and we made the protection group switch and brought the systems back within less than 30 minutes. It reduced our downtime on some critical applications.

If we hadn't used Zerto, we would have had to vMotion them to the other side and that could have taken hours. That could also potentially have been unreliable because there's a timeout period when vMotion works. We used Zerto to be safe.

It is pretty simple to use.

Whenever we do a failover, there's a confirmation box that shows up later. It's a little hard to see sometimes. We'll do the failover and some preparation activities and then there's a checkbox you need to check to continue and sometimes it's small, in the corner, depending on which screen you're using. A popup to continue would be a little bit better because then you're not sitting and waiting for something and it's already there.

We also had an issue with a misnamed network. They should make that a little more apparent when it's not available on the destination side. We were able to go all the way through with it, but when we did the recovery, it wasn't available. A pre-check to say, "Hey, it's not available. What network do you want to use?" would be helpful.

I have been using Zerto for about a month because I'm new with my current company.

The stability has been alright. We have failed over quite a number of machines.

We did have an issue with one failover. It didn't fail over completely. You really don't want to have to contact support in those situations, but we had to. It could have been an issue on our side as opposed to something being wrong with the configuration. I don't know what happened, but they got it working.

We had to call support during that migration because one of the settings wasn't correct. I don't know exactly what went wrong, but we had to create a ticket. Zerto got back to us within an hour, so we were really impressed with the support from them. It was really good. They got us taken care of pretty fast and we were back online during the process, within an hour. They were quick to respond after we submitted the ticket and then they got it fixed. There's not really much more they could have done in that situation.

Positive

We use VMware-native as well as Zerto. It's all circumstantial, based on sites. Some sites ended up getting an SRM license, so we have kept them instead of wasting licenses. And some sites use Zerto. Maybe down the road we'll pick one of the products, but for now, we use both.

Zerto was already there when I stepped into the picture. I helped initiate some of the disaster recovery processes. Based on what I saw from the outside, it was easy because it was ready for that situation quickly. It was ready in a business day or less, aside from the replication aspect or the data sync from when you first set up the jobs. But the basic setup to get things going was ready within less than a business day.

I would think we have seen return on the investment in Zerto because we use it a decent amount of the time. We have reduced the downtime within the last month because of it as well.

We've used SRM from VMware. Personally, I prefer Zerto because it's a little more automated. VMware has more requirements and VMware tools get us stuck sometimes. If the VMware tools aren't working on a virtual machine, it won't replicate over as quickly or start up as quickly because it's waiting for that service. You have to do custom settings to avoid that. Zerto doesn't have that requirement. It's a little more click-and-go versus click-and-monitor and then trace back and see what went wrong.

Zerto is also probably faster because SRM waits for VMware tools to come up and say, "Hey, we're here." That's not a requirement that I know of, with Zerto. Maybe it is. I'm a newer user of the product.

In terms of the number of staff involved in data recovery situations, Zerto hasn't really reduced that. My team generally handles those situations and it's the same number of people, regardless of which product we're using.

Zerto worked and did its job and it was easy to use. My team liked it, and the database administrators, who were the customers in that instance where we did the temporary migration, appreciated it.

I would rate it at eight out 10. Sometimes the interface can be a little tricky. If you're using a disaster recovery application, you're in a stressful situation already. Sometimes there are a lot of confirmations you have to go through just to start the Virtual Protection Group, and then it starts and you have to confirm again a few minutes later. You're stressed out. You're talking via chats with a bunch of people and there were times where that prompt was probably sitting there for minutes, which cost money.

More confirmations upfront and removing that second one later on in the process would be good, or a popup, instead of it being a small checkbox in the corner of the screen, is my recommendation.

I primarily use it for disaster recovery backup. Also, whenever we need to move things between our different environments, e.g., moving it to different vCenters and Azure, that is primarily done through Zerto

We are in the process of doing a disaster recovery test soon, and Zerto is at the forefront of that. Zerto is really helping out with this. The bigwigs, who don't know anything about technology, come to us and then we explain Zerto to them. Whenever we simulate failures, Zerto has been able to seamlessly and instantly recover. This really gives our team big brownie points.

The most valuable feature is Instant Recovery. Especially when a server needs to be moved over in a crisis situation, Zerto has been there to help me out in a pinch. It is really fast and responsive. It is always there when you need it most.

It is great for reliability. 

I have had problems with vRAs. When I am trying to restart a host, sometimes the vRAs will hang. I would like it if they wouldn't migrate off or shut themselves down, then I have to manually work with it a lot of the time.

I have been at the company for about six months and using Zerto the whole time.

It is pretty stable. The only problem I have is with the vRAs sometimes freezing up. Other than that, it has been pretty stable and reliable. I feel like we can count on it.

It is very scalable. I feel comfortable with it. if we needed to expand in an instant we could.

I have only used our customer support for upgrades, but they have been great and helpful. I would rate them as 10 out of 10.

Positive

If I have networking issues on one vCenter, then I can just Zerto it over to another vCenter. This instantly fixes the problem, saving us time and money. In one case, our phone system was down because we were having a network issue at one of the vCenters. So, I just moved the machine over to the other vCenter through Zerto. It came back online, bringing us back up.

It is way faster than just manually moving VMDKs, etc. It saves hours of time and a significant amount of money.

I can compare Zerto to Rubrik's instant VM recovery from our backups. Zerto is faster. Since Zerto is instant, it is always watching while Rubrik has to take time and restore everything.

The solution is really good. I am super happy with Zerto.

I would rate Zerto as 10 out of 10. They are great.

We use Zerto as our primary disaster recovery tool for our most important servers.

Zerto is tremendously valuable. It is the backbone of our DR solution for critical databases that hold the data we can't afford to lose. It provided new opportunities to change how we approach disaster recovery. 

We realized the benefits quickly, but I don't think it became a staple of our disaster recovery until about a year into our deployment. In the first couple of months, we had some hiccups with upgrades. Once they sorted everything out, it truly became a core solution for us.

It enabled us to transition from data recovery based in a physical data center to the cloud and protect VMs in our environment. Our RPOs also improved tremendously. When we first started, only one other product offered the same RPOs that Zerto provides. However, the other product was problematic, and Zerto has been solid. Compared to other DR solutions, it works quickly to stand up the failed server at another site and bring it nearly into full production. 

We used it to migrate a server, which provided a wonderful recovery time. It worked well. Our RTOs improved tremendously. It reduced downtime in most situations and the time spent on DR testing. A DR test used to run probably 48 hours and involved around four engineers. With Zerto, it runs for about six hours and only requires two engineers.

We couldn't find a product that provides the near-zero recovery point that Zerto offers. The closest we could get was another product that had zero data loss. Everything else had a minimum of 15 minutes of replication time, resulting in data loss.

Zerto can also perform test environment restorations that don't affect production. It's also easy to use. It's a set-it-and-forget-it product. Unless you need to make changes to the devices you protect, you don't need to go in except to make sure everything runs smoothly.

I wish Zerto had better file restoration capabilities. We have not been able to use that because of the limitations of Zerto's de-duplication technology. When we used the immutable data copies feature, we had some lag in replication times, so we don't use that anymore. When there is big data movement, it tends to cause some lag.

We've been using Zerto for about three or four years.

With time, it became a highly reliable and stable solution. We were an early adopter, and it had some hiccups initially. I think they've done a great job streamlining it and making it reliable.

The times that I've needed technical support, they've been very good.I would give it an eight.

Positive

Zerto still hasn't replaced all our other backup solutions, but it has replaced two of them. It is leagues above the other products we used in terms of simplicity and reliability. We have another solution to get around Zerto's file restoration and de-duplication issues. We use Veeam Backup and Replication for that. 

Setting up Zerto is straightforward. The documentation was great, and it is intuitive. Integration with VMware is seamless. It's good at running the scripts needed to run in order to work with VMware. We have a 90 percent virtualized environment. 

I think everything can be cheaper. Pricing limited our ability to use Zerto as much as we'd like, but that's not why we haven't adopted it as our primary backup solution.

We evaluated Double-Take, Veeam's replication solution, and Azure's Site Recovery. None could match Zerto's RTO and RPO. The only one that got close was Double-Take, but Double-Take was very problematic.

I rate Zerto eight out of ten. There's always room for improvement. It's one of the best solutions for disaster recovery available right now.

We use Zerto for disaster recovery (DR) purposes. We needed a tool to provide a quick resolution during a failure or problem and help us achieve our goals related to our service level agreement (SLA). We needed a tool that would help us in providing the availability of lost services within a specific time frame. We wanted to make sure that in case there is a problem and we have to execute the DR procedure, it is quick, easy, and safe. So, the main purpose for going for Zerto is related to meeting the required parameters for RPO and RTO.

We don't use Zerto for backup purposes. It is used only for virtual machines. We also have physical servers, but we have different tools for backup. 

Currently, we are using it for on-premise data centers, but we also do proof of concept tests with public clouds or hybrid clouds.

It is very good in terms of end-user experience and functionality. The graphical user interface (GUI) is quite simple, and it shows many values related to the status of replication. You can see the current status of a specific application and the health status of infrastructure on the GUI. You can very quickly navigate the application and find very useful information related to the health status of your infrastructure. You can see if the infrastructure is working fine and if there are any bottlenecks or problems that need to be verified by the IT infra department.

It helps us with standardization. It allows us to have a unified DR approach where with one tool, we can meet the DR requirements of different systems with different levels of DR criticality and classification. We have customers for whom the availability of a particular system is crucial for business, and this system requires a very high quality of replication. At the same time, they also have systems that are not as critical. For a unified approach to the DR process, it is better to use the same DR tool for all applications with different levels of criticality. Instead of using different tools for critical and non-critical applications, it is better to use one single tool and have a unified process. Zerto helps us with that.

Different types of integration allow you to provide the tool not only to specialist teams, such as infrastructure teams, but also to the end-users to perform activities like failover, system recovery, and system protection. Service portal integration and automation integration provide a big value in terms of DR activities. You don't have to wait for VMware specialists to perform the DR failover task. You can do it on your own if you have access to the DRaaS portal, for example. DRaaS portal is DR as a service that we have implemented in our own infrastructure, and it is a part of process improvement in our organization.

It has significantly decreased our RTO for failover to the full scope of an application. You can easily measure DR activities for a specific application. If you are responsible not only for your application as an application owner but also need to provide support to many customers at the same time, such a tool is very good. When you are responsible for delivering as per the SLA for RTO to many customers at the same time, it is very helpful because you can perform required activities automatically, and you can also perform them in parallel.

We are very satisfied with the achieved RTOs. We have specific requirements based on the service delivered values and SLA contracts, and by using the tool, we are able to fully meet RTOs for specific applications, a group of applications, or the whole scope of a data center.

During our DR exercises, we try to simulate the worst-case scenario where a complete data center is unreachable, and we are able to achieve the required RTO. Zerto is able to fully meet our needs, and we are able to achieve the required RTO during our normal and yearly DR exercise. We are receiving exactly what we were promised. However, I can't provide metrics or compare it to another tool because we have been using it from the beginning. I don't have the metrics for how much time it would take if we didn't have this tool, but the values that we are receiving during our annual DR exercise are fully satisfactory. So, it is fully sufficient for us.

The time saved in a data recovery situation depends on the specific scenario and the specific system that needs to be recovered. For example, if you have 50 gigabytes built into a machine that needs to be recovered, then with a traditional backup and restore solution, the recovery is very quick and easy. It would take from minutes to an hour depending upon your infrastructure or the bottleneck in your infrastructure. The problem occurs when you have very big systems with 10, 30, or 50 terabytes to be recovered. In such a case, it doesn't matter if it is ransomware or it is an infra failure. Even though the root cause is not the same, the outcome is the same. The fact is that you don't have a working system, and you need to recover the system. Recovering a big system with the traditional approach could take you a week, which is something that businesses do not accept. With a tool like Zerto, I can fail over the system very quickly. During DR exercises, I performed DR activities for systems with many terabytes of data, and it is not a problem to recover that system and failover. I have very good experience with that. During the training or presentation for my customers, I have shown how it works and what are its advantages. One of them is the possibility of a very quick recovery irrespective of the size of the system. The approach is exactly the same irrespective of whether it is an infra issue or a ransomware issue.

The main purpose of this tool is to allow failover between different data centers and different locations. When one site is unavailable, we can start the failover activity and perform the failover task. When a primary location is unavailable, or there is some hardware or logical issue at the primary location, it allows us to resolve the problem. We are able to start services at safe locations. We handle the disaster recovery process, and this is the main function for which we are using it all the time.

The second valuable feature is related to integration. If we want to implement any tool in our company, we want to make sure that it is not sandboxed. It shouldn't be completely isolated from other systems, and it should help other systems to receive feedback. To gain advantages of having tools like Zerto on the board, we want to combine our disaster recovery with other processes, such as incident management or change management. We can integrate these processes using different tools, but usually, the best approach is related to API. So, we can integrate different systems and combine them into a big IT platform, which allows us to achieve more features that are normally not available in the tool itself.

Zerto supports different ways to integrate with or get information from the systems. GUI is one of the options, and technologies like PowerShell cmdlets or RESTful APIs are also very good to exchange data for integration or automation purposes.

We also use Zerto for compliance purposes in case we need to provide evidence. When we perform DR exercises and we have some problems with the infrastructure, we need to prove that some actions were taken. It works very well when we perform DR activities and we want to show external auditors the proof and evidence of performed actions.

It is very quickly developed, and new features are provided quite often. I don't have any input for improvement or a critical feature request at this moment. If anything, a lower price is always better.

I have been using Zerto for six years. 

Its stability is very good. Of course, bugs can be found because this is live infrastructure, which is normal. There are new VMware releases, and there are new operating system releases. If there are some problems with applications, we raise cases, and we get the required support in resolving the issue. So, my experience has been very good.

Its scalability is very good. We can use it in on-prem and hybrid cloud environments. It works well with different vendors.

We are using it for different locations. We are using it for on-premise data centers, and we are also using it for all the production systems that we have. Any increase in its usage will depend on the decision of the company. If the decision is to change the platform and integrate with different vendors, we can choose additional features, but at the moment, we are using only the on-premises functionality.

Their support is very good. We have to meet our SLA, and the infrastructure is very sophisticated and demanding. We have had different cases that need investigation and resolution, and we could always count on Zerto's support, which is available 24/7. I don't have any complaints about their support. I would rate them a ten out of ten. If possible, I would even give them eleven.

Positive

I have not worked with any other tool previously. This is the only tool I have used. 

It was quite easy to implement and start the execution. There were no problems. It took us about three months to implement it in production.

For implementation, we were using the services directly from Zerto's support teams. In terms of the number of people, there were two people from the DR team and two from the infrastructure team, which included the networking and VMware teams.

In terms of maintenance, every tool requires maintenance, and when you upgrade, there are some bugs or issues that need to be resolved. Currently, for the maintenance of the application for many customers, one person is enough. Based on the number of protected systems and sophisticated infrastructure that we have, it works very well. It is not something that we should complain about.

Its price is reasonable. I have not worked with other tools, but as compared to its competitors such as VMware, its price is lower. So, in my opinion, its price is good.

Based on our experience and the implementations that we have done successfully, it is the right tool for protecting small environments and very big environments. It fits the needs of organizations that require a few functionalities, and it also fits the needs of organizations with a sophisticated environment comprising managed systems, multiple integrations, etc.

Zerto provides near-synchronous replication. So, the RTO is near zero. It is not equal to zero. From my perspective, there are some specific IT areas where synchronous replication is a must, but in most scenarios or use cases, synchronous replication is like a trap because you need to have a single connection between two replication zones or sites, which I would refer to as a single point of failure. If you have storage that is replicated between two sites, in certain scenarios, you won't be able to perform failover activities. If storage is broken on the primary location and you have enabled synchronous replication, the replicated data is also sent to the recovery site. So, you cannot perform failover activities because you now have corrupted data at both sites or data centers. We have chosen this tool to get out of this trap and be able to failover but not to the exact point in time when the issue occurred. I have experience working with such scenarios. For a specific group of systems that require synchronous replication, I can have an additional level of protection by having other DR tools, and at the same time, I can provide replication by using tools like Zerto. So, I can enable two DR solutions on one protected system and resolve the issues related to different scenarios.

In terms of reducing the DR tasks, because I have not used other tools, I can't provide the metrics for increase or decrease in time. However, considering that the tool is implemented for the whole scope of our application, we do not have to wait and spend weeks or months preparing for the DR test. We are prepared all the time for any issue. We also perform the unknown data center DR exercise allowing us to choose the test data center just before the DR exercise. I can very quickly start the recovery operations without a long preparation phase. This is one of the main features of a DR tool that should be taken into account for a company. You should have a tool that you can use at any time. You should ensure and be confident of the fact that it will work and not create any problems during the failover.

DR exercises generally should be performed by customers and application owners. That's because they know best what the issue is and how to provide a solution. It requires synchronization of some tasks and allowing more critical systems to be failed over before the less critical ones. To perform a global DR exercise preparation and execution, very less staff is required. Communicating with customers about the agenda and defining the scope, tasks, schedule, and other things take most of the time, but the execution phase is quick. It can be executed by one operator. It can be done by an infra specialist or an application owner, but ideally, it shouldn't be done by the specialist team. It should be done by application owners because they know the best about the issue.

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten. It is a very good tool, and we have had very good experience with it. We have no problems with recommending it to others.