OpenText Data Protector Reviews

We use the OpenText Data Protectoras an enterprise backup solution. It performs backups for various company setups, including servers and storage systems.

The tool's most valuable aspect is its ease of management. It was not complex. In terms of features, I can mention a couple of things. For example, if you need to restore a VM, you can do it with multiple streams in OpenText Data Protector, which is an advantage over Commvault, from what I've noticed, having worked with multiple tools. Another thing is the Oracle backups; configuring Oracle backups is much easier in OpenText Data Protector.

Automated backups run on their own schedules, which happens automatically as planned.

The challenge is that we can't restore a single file from the VM in the data process when we do VM backups. But with Commvault, you can restore a single file even if you have a VM snapshot package. That's one drawback of this tool. When we do VM backups, it should help us browse the VMs to restore a single file instead of doing the complete VM restore.

I've been working with the product for a couple of years. Throughout this period, I haven't been focused on just one tool; I've worked with multiple solutions.

The solution is stable. 

The product is a scalable enterprise solution. 

The tool's support is good but not the best. 

Neutral

The tool's deployment is simple. To implement the OpenText Data Protector solution, we first assess the size of the data and the number of servers that need backup. Based on this, we estimate the requirements for setting up the tool framework, including the media servers.

We allocate the necessary space and RAM for these servers. Once this is done, we proceed with the basic installation of the server, add the licenses, and configure the backup services.The initial setup may take around two hours, but the full deployment duration depends on the number of servers that need to be integrated and set up for backup.

The process doesn't require many people or resources. One person can easily handle the setup. If it's a large enterprise, a few extra hands might be needed, but the initial setup can be managed by one person.

The cost-effectiveness of the data protector solution depends on what the customer needs. If it matches their requirements, it's cost-effective. However, if they need more features, they might have to buy extra solutions, affecting cost-effectiveness.

The product is cheaper than Commvault. 

The tool  is easy to manage and offers centralized management, a major advantage. You can use one console to manage multiple locations. We don't currently use AI in our strategies, but we may explore it in the future. Integrating AI with OpenText Data Protector could help ensure that our backups are clean and free from cybersecurity threats or corruption. This would enable us to perform clean restores whenever necessary.

I rate the overall product an eight out of ten. 

We use Micro Focus Data Protector for taking backups throughout our entire data center, which includes backups for our SAP HANA, Oracle, and SQL databases, as well as for the Windows virtual instances which also require file-level, user data, and database backups.

Data Protector's granular recovery features make it easy for us to create and restore backups in an understandable and user-friendly manner. With granular recovery, any database or even just a database table can be restored at will.

The new dashboard that has been introduced is also very good because it allows us to easily visualize how many backups have been performed, showing the total number of TB used as well as useful information on our backup schedules.

Also, in terms of basic backup features, it has everything that most other backup solutions provide and the pricing is very competitive for what it offers.

Micro Focus are improving Data Protector with every new version and since we began undergoing training with the latest version we have not faced any real challenges yet. However, their support does need to be improved, in my opinion. In certain critical cases that we've had, they did not provide a satisfactory level of support.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for the past ten years.

It is both stable and easy to maintain.

In terms of scalability, we're already using it throughout our entire data center. There are no limitations when it comes either host or data backups; you simply need to buy the appropriate licenses and scale up as required.

For any issues that we encounter, we escalate to Micro Focus' tech support. Unfortunately, their support does need some improvement because, in critical cases we've had in the past, I don't believe that they have provided adequate support.

Neutral

For me, setting up Micro Focus is straightforward when it comes to the Windows platform, but somewhat more complicated on Linux because I am not very accustomed to Linux. 

It will generally take one month for the planning phase, then another month for testing, after which we can implement it and move it into production.

Everything in terms of implementation is done in-house.

We are indeed getting return on investment from this solution.

Data Protector's pricing is very competitive and we have no issues in this regard. I would give it an eight out of ten in terms of pricing.

There are two main types of license, one being a perpetual license with a one-time charge and the other is a subscription license where you pay every year. With either type, scaling up is not a problem; you can just buy the appropriate license that is in compliance with your needs, and there is no limitation here.

We are currently evaluating similar backup solutions in the market such as those from Veeam and Veritas (NetBackup). 

At the end of the day, Data Protector is a user-friendly backup solution that is easy to integrate with any OS or database. Its main strengths include granular backup functionality and a well-implemented dashboard that tells you all the essential info such as how many backups you've run, how many have succeeded or failed, and how much space the backups are taking up.

I would rate Micro Focus Data Protector a nine out of ten.

We don't use Micro Focus widely. It's used as a backup-to-tape system. Overall, we have about five users because a couple of our clients use it as well.  

I like that Micro Focus keeps a separate catalog of our data. 

Many of our users complain about the GUI. You still need to rely on the command line interface. Because it originated as a Unix system, Data Protector is still a command line-driven solution, which makes it seem rather dated compared to systems that are built around a GUI from day one. It doesn't affect the functionality, but some people don't find it user-friendly.

I have been using Micro Focus for almost 20 years. 

Data Protector is stable.

Data Protector is highly scalable.

We don't use Micro Focus support often, but it has been pretty good when we needed it.

We also use Acronis Backup, but it's hard for me to compare because I don't have as much experience with Acronis relative to Data Protector. It's also one of those difficult situations because we haven't really pushed Data Protector to its limits. It has a lot of functionality that we don't use. We tend to use more of Acronis' functionality, so it would be unfair to compare them.

The initial setup is fairly straightforward because it was historically a Unix system. It takes about half a day to install. 

Data Protector has an annual license, and it's reasonably priced. 

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector eight out of 10. It's a highly stable solution that does the job. To use this product, you must comfortable with a command line interface, and many people today can't deal with anything that's not GUI. You need to be in control of the command line to use it properly. 

It works excellently only with Oracle.

It has a lot of undeveloped functions like window searching and patent searching, and within the main backup processes like VMware and Microsoft Exchange.

It's completely not user-friendly, and it has no built-in antivirus software. In my opinion, Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution.

I would like to see the quick search bar working without complexities and would like to see the building reporting. I would like to see it deny the architecture of the client and server and work directly via APIs.

I would like to see Micro Focus Data Protector be completely web based with fast HTML files. That would reduce a lot of installation time with all those script integrations and so on.

It would be good to have automation of the broken backups. For example, NetBackup had a great feature when the backup broke for some reason. It would automatically try to resume it eight or nine times and only then would give a fail error.

The stability depends on the environment because there can be some special cases where Micro Focus Data Protector is not stable at all.

The technical support from Micro Focus is terrible in terms of the quality and problem solving. For example, let's assume that something went wrong when running Data Protector in a large infrastructure environment with permanent backups going on. When we contact technical support, they will ask us to provide logs. However, if we turn the bug mode on it will affect all of the systems, and we simply will not be able to collect the requested logs for that purpose. So, it becomes impossible to provide the necessary log files because we cannot stop the critical backups.

I have some experience with NetBackup. It was more stable, user-friendly, and had the best support. However, the decision makers decided that Micro Focus Data Protector was the better way to go, and we had to switch.

As for the initial setup, it's perfect for small- and medium-sized companies.

The pricing is acceptable for enterprise level companies, but it's not acceptable for small- and medium-sized businesses. Micro Focus Data Protector is not an enterprise level solution, and it should cover small- and medium-sized businesses with acceptable prices.

I would advise you not to use Micro Focus Data Protector and would rate it at four on a scale from one to ten.

We use Data Protector for backup and recovery.

The most valuable feature of Data Protector is its integration with VMware. A lot of software these days integrates with VMware, and you can run some of these things on virtual machines. You can even have your backup manager running on a virtual machine and use physical managers to move data around. Their VMware integration isn't too bad, but Commvault has that feature, and many other backup products do.

We're not satisfied with the robustness and stability of the software since Micro Focus took it in-house. The GUI is one thing they could improve. It's still a bit archaic. Data Protector needs a more functional, user-friendly GUI.

I started at this company in 2018, so I have been using Data Protector at this company since then or maybe a little before. They were using the solution before HPE sold it off to Micro Focus. The company was initially using it with MSL Tape Libraries. When I joined, StoreOnce had just been installed.

Data Protector isn't stable.

Data Protector is sufficiently scalable for our purposes, but our site isn't that big.

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector six out of 10. We were unsatisfied with the support, and that contributed to the decision to migrate to Commvault. The quality dropped when they outsourced support. It's not the only company. HPE also took its service and support to Bangalore in India.

You should only outsource if your service level won't drop, but it always drops. When you mention that to management, they say, "Okay, we know, but everybody is doing it." Accenture does it and Cognizant, too. All the big services companies are all down there.

Neutral

The company is considering a switch to Commvault. It's a global company, so the transition will be worldwide, and we don't have a say. I still don't have any hands-on experience, but I know HPE has tightened its ties with Commvault, and they're producing technical best practices for the product. They are even promoting Commvault as their backup solution of choice when providing backup solutions to customers.

Data Protector used to be their product, so they did have the chance. Once Micro Focus acquired them, even HPE was not satisfied with the level of support and gradually started looking to Commvault. At the same time, if somebody asked me which backup solution I would suggest, I couldn't recommend Commvault because I don't have the experience yet.

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector six out of 10.

We have two different systems. We use Microsoft Azure Backup for VM machines and Micro Focus for our file server, database, and cloud backups, like Exchange Online and so forth.  

The online backups of Office 365 have room for improvement. This is now available for the Exchange Online part of Office 365, but we're still waiting for SharePoint Online, Teams, etc. We know that it's coming, but it takes time.

We have been using Data Protector for more than 20 years. We started using it when it was an HP solution, but then Micro Focus acquired it. It was always the same product.

Data Protector is highly stable.

Data Protector is scalable. 

I've never heard any complaints about Micro Focus support, so I think it's okay.

Data Protector is quite simple and easy to deploy. The deployment is always the same. It's on a server, and the agents are deployed to the machines in a straightforward way. We have two engineers who deploy and manage all our backup solutions. 

We switched from device licensing to volume-based licensing for Data Protector.

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector eight out of 10. We chose Data Protector years ago because it supported all the systems and databases we needed. Other software packages covered a special range of products but didn't offer broad support. This was a long time ago, so I don't know the situation in the market today.

I am a manager at a mid-size non-profit and we use this to backup HPE UNIX servers.

I like that it supports HPE UNIX servers since many backup solutions do not - this is the main reason why we chose this solution.

I do not think that this solution is relevant in the current IT market. They have not upgraded their features and functionalities which makes it difficult for them to remain competitive. 

I have been using this solution for about fifteen years.

It is a stable solution, we have not experienced any bugs over the past fifteen or so years.

I would say that it is scalable.

Support could be better. Right now, for us, their preferred communication method is via email which takes quite a bit of time to resolve even small issues.

The initial setup in general was simple. However, if you want encryption, you need to install something else, and there are other models for reporting. This can get a little complex since it is not a single solution that gives everything out-of-the-box.

We have four or five guys from our backup admin team who work in here regularly.

The solution was implemented by a partner of Micro Focus and it took about one to two days to setup for our mid-size company.

There is a perpetual license involved in addition to support which needs to be renewed annually.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We primarily use data protection in complex environments with large Oracle databases, Hyper-V, and VMWare hypervisors with replication of backup sets to DR site. 

It's used for data protection of large Oracle Databases, backups of small branch offices, zero-downtime backup of mission-critical databases with HPE storage (XP or 3PAR), data protection of most common NAS appliances through NDMP protocol, and the backup of Microsoft Exchange, Microsoft Sharepoint, and the Microsoft SQL Server. 

It provides a consolidation of backups to the tape library and to the cloud provider. 

Data Protector works in conjunction with a Catalyst-based deduplication feature and HPE StoreOnce appliances to provide us with the tools to build reliable DR solutions for backups through Catalyst stores replication using ARS between the sites. 

The wide variety of parameters that can be used to perform fine-tuning of integrations helped us to reach stability with the backups of complex environments. 

The push install feature helped us in completing large migrations from other backup software vendors in a short amount of time.

Oracle DB instances backup is one of the main script integrations in the backup specification of the NDMP three-way backups. It lets us use StoreOnce Catalyst stores as a destination through an ethernet connection, bypassing the SAN and avoiding the use of physical and virtual tape libraries. 

Catalyst stores replication using ARS between two sites - each with a distinct cell manager. 

The command-line interface is user-friendly and well documented in the reference guide. 

Push install from DP GUI interface lets us deploy/upgrade clients of most common platforms in a short amount of time.

The VMware GRE is still limited and complex to implement with differences in behavior between Windows and Linux mount proxies. 

ZDB has too many constraints (e.g. it doesn't work for Linux volumes mirrored with software different from LVM). 

Microfocus needs to build a partnership with other vendors in addition to HPE as far as cloud consolidation of backups. 

With the 11.0 release, there have been improvements in terms of security (Secure communication) however, the bar is still not high enough. 

Data Protector advanced scheduler should be replaced with a more reliable scheduler such as the Veritas One.

I've used the solution for 12 years.

The solution, especially if it's implemented in the Linux platform, is very stable.

The scalability is good, however, being a solution that relies on HW from other vendors (HPE, EMC, etc.) scalability isn't a mess for Data Protector itself.

The customer service is discreet.

Neutral

In the past, I used EMC Networker and Veritas Netbackup and I switched to HPE Data Protector for business needs.

The initial setup was straightforward. The installation manuals are well done and there are several setup wizards at our disposal.

All implementations were handled in-house.

Information is reserved and cannot be shared as per company policies.

The setup cost is not so large compared with other software, while as far as licensing goes, I suggest one per capacity (Front End TB) if the environment is heterogeneous with both physical and virtual servers.

We did not evaluate other options first.