OpenText Data Protector Reviews

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 can back up Oracle databases, SQL databases, Windows machines, Linux, and virtual machines like VMware with this product.

In terms of configuration, it's very flexible. 

If you have an idea of what you are doing, it's very flexible and very stable. We've been using it since 2010 without an issue.

The downside of the flexibility on offer is if you over-configure it, it may fail to function as some configurations may not match. That said, it's a very flexible tool to use it. It helps to start with minimal configuration to avoid misalignment of parameters.

The scheduling could be better. We thought they had made some improvements, however, the scheduling of backups needs to be more flexible and we need to be able to apply different policies at different times.

I've been using the solution since 2010. I've been using it since version six onwards. It's been more than ten years at this point.

The stability is great. For the most part, there are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. It's reliable. However, when it comes to new versions, there are certain issues that crop up. They may be due to new developments.

It's scalable. You can have multiple Cell Managers. For example, let's say your environment is very large. You can have the backup server dedicated to a certain group of targets, and then you can have multiple backup servers. You can have another backup server that manages the other backup servers, which means now you can have a global view of all the backup servers. 

At the same time, when it comes to storage, you can integrate it into several storage areas. Instead of just using tape, you can use the backup directly to disk. That means even the disk capacity can scale up to many terabytes depending on the storage you are using.

In terms of users, I can't say we have so many users as we are an enterprise, and within an enterprise, there'll be people dedicated to managing the backup. 

As we have a couple of hundreds of systems that we are backing up, I would say that we use it quite extensively.

We've used technical support in the past. For example, recently, we were changing our licenses from the traditional licensing to capacity We had to ask them to help us apply the license. That was the first time we were applying that license. For the traditional licenses, we've been doing it ourselves without a problem. They helped to show us how to apply the license, which means next time we can do it ourselves.

The initial setup is straightforward if you know what you are doing. However, due to the flexibility, you may find that you need someone who can guide you in terms of doing the minimum that is required, instead of just over-configuring it. 

In 2010, when I started using it, the backups were actually failing every day, only to find that there were too many mismatching configurations due to the flexibility. 

The deployment process can take a couple of days. For us, we are a large environment. While the installation itself doesn't take long, the configuration will take time in terms of configuring the backup devices and making sure that everything is working. We need to test and then add new clients. Most of the time required is just to configure the backup devices, like the disks to the virtual tapes, and add that line. However, the installation itself doesn't take long. That part you can do in half a day.

There are just a few people managing the backup environment, however, there are a couple of hundred systems that are being backed up. In terms of the people, we have about five users who look after the environment. However, it's stable. They are not busy with the environment every day. It's just to manage backups.

In general, the size of the team needed to watch the system depends on the size of your environment. The platform itself doesn't need a lot of people. One person is enough. That said, just looking after backups is what makes you look for more people. Looking after the platform, we've been using one person for a long time. 

In terms of licensing, you just pay for the licenses you use. That said, it depends on what you want to do - depending on the functionality you need. With capacity-based licensing, you just pay for the size of the backups, and you have all the functionality that comes with the platform.

We've tried Veeam for VMware, for virtual machines. At the time, it had limitations. We have since stuck with Data Protector. We have evaluated other solutions, however, for some reason, we decided not to go further.

I'm a customer and an end-user.

We are almost using the latest version of the solution. We are actually using 10. We haven't yet upgraded, however, we are just a step away from the latest.

I would recommend the solution to others. They are 100% perfect. Just like any company, they have their own issues. That said, I would still recommend it as a comprehensive backup and recovery solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight 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.

We primarily use the solution as a backup. It basically backs up all of my premium items.

It's a good product that's pretty easy to use.

The solution is scalable. 

The initial setup is rather straightforward.

It would be ideal if they could improve their level of support.

We've been using the solution for eight years or so. It's been a while. 

The product is scalable. If a company wants to expand it, it can do so. It's not a problem. 

We have less than 100 people on the solution right now. 

The level of support is lacking. They need to step up the level of service they offer. We aren't 100% satisfied. They are friendly, however, they aren't really flexible. 

The installation is pretty straightforward and simple. It's not too complex or overly difficult. A company wouldn't have any trouble setting it up.

The deployment is fast and likely you can have it up and running in a day.

You don't need a big technical team to handle deployment and maintenance. You might just need two people who are engineers. 

I handled the implementation by myself. I did not need the help of any integrators or consultants at the time. 

The product is reasonably priced. It's not too expensive. 

We're currently using version 10 of the solution. 

I'd rate the solution at an eight out of ten. It's pretty good. 

I'd recommend the solution to others. 

We primarily use the solution for our server backup and some Linux system backups as well as a backup for our SQL.

The main reason for usage is to protect our information. However, we've searching for new tools for increasing the volume of information and increasing platform protection. Unfortunately, Data Protector is not exactly the tool for that task.

The stability of the product seems to be quite good.

The solution isn't ideal for big data or large CRMs.

We have been lacking proper training on the solution. This seems to be a weak point of the product. They should offer better training for their users.

Other tools seem to be easier to use.

The solution should offer support for the backup of cloud platforms. The same system needs to work with replication and mirror sites, for example.

I've been dealing with the solution for five years or so.

The stability of the solution is quite good. There aren't bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze at all. It's reliable.

As this is an appliance, the scalability is limited to the sizing. There's only so much capacity that is possible.

It's difficult to get technical support and proper assistance for this tool.

I've only worked with this particular company for eight months and they've had the solution for a number of years previous to my start. I did not play a role in the implementation and therefore can't speak to how easy or difficult the setup or deployment was for them.

I'm not sure how many people the company used for deployment or how many are needed for maintenance.

I don't have any insights into the licensing or costs. It's not an aspect of the solution that I handle directly.

We're currently planning on changing out backup tools. At the moment we're looking at Veeam and Barracuda. We have some systems deployed by Spanish users and they already use Barracuda, which is why we are considering it. We're taking licensing costs into account, however, we're finding that the most visible difference is the user interface as well as the style of use - for example, how to backup and recover data.

We're just a customer and an end-user. We don't have a special relationship with this company.

I'm not sure of the exact version we're using. It may be some iteration of version six.

I'd advise new users to implement the solution using a support person and good documentation and to make sure they are putting the correct data policies in place.

In the past, it was quite a good tool, however, now, due to a lack of training, or due to having a lack of staff that is trained in it, it is likely much easier to have something like Veeam, which isn't as complicated of a solution.

On a scale from one to ten, I would rate this product at a five. In comparison, I'd rate Veeam at an eight.

The primary use case is integration with the HP storage unit. There is an HP product line called HP High-End Storage. We are primarily using Micro Focus Data Protector for SAP RT application, which is an earlier version. 

Integration with HP storage is a very strong point for Micro Focus Data Protector. 

It is the best solution for general operations like backup and restore. Zero downtime backup (ZDB) is one very important feature, which is basically the integration with the storage array. It is a very strong feature. We're using storage with snapshots with this integration. 

In general, you can say that Micro Focus Data Protector is behind in capabilities when compared with other backup solutions, such as Commvault, Symantec, NetBackup, but it is very strong for certain use cases such as array integration. We are using it in production even now.

There should be some kind of cloud integration and archiving solutions. I think this is the area they need to focus on.

We have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for six to seven years. 

We have been using HP solutions, comprising HP servers, storage, and even the HP operating system unit, for five to seven years. Micro Focus Data Protector was configured and installed during the last tech research around six to seven years ago, and it is still in production. Currently, we have replaced the solution with some other solution, but for the older tech research, Micro Focus Data Protector is still working.

We're relying on this backup for our very critical core application. It's really good all the time for backup and restore operations. We never faced any issue. You can say it is a very smooth and stable experience.

Scalability of Micro Focus Data Protector is good. There may be tens of thousands of users currently in our company.

The technical support is really good. They're always very cooperative and really very good. The support experience is actually very good.

I was not there at that time. It shouldn't actually take much time, maybe a few weeks or one month.

It was deployed by HP. Their deployment team installed and configured everything.

It is a very good product if you want to go for the ZDB backup or the array integration with HP products. In general, when comparing Micro Focus Data Protector with other backup solutions, such as Commvault, NetBackup, or any other vendor, they are much more comprehensive and have much more capabilities.

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

 We primarily use the solution for data backups.

On the interface level of managing the backup, especially the history of the files that we are backing up, Data Protector is pretty good.

Implementation is pretty easy, depending on the number of clients.

The data deduplication is great.

The solution offers easy device detection. It's great for detecting devices you attach to the network. It doesn't matter if it's HPE StoreOnce or Data Domain, this solution will pick it up.

The catalog if very complete. Even if your file is eight years old, you'll be able to see it there.

Data Protector is very good at automation. From the time of the backup, verification, and copy to tape, it is very good. I don't need to touch it, it will do it by itself. 

It's annoying that you actually have to pay for the deduplication feature in order to use it.

Starting at around 2010, they haven't really changed their interface or added many new features. The console is dated. they need to make it more modern, add colours and better UI to make it more user friendly and attractive.

If you compare the solution with the same specific features and enhancements on another solution, Data Protector is expensive. This is especially true when compared to, for example, Veeam.

They are starting to create a cloud version of the Data Protector. The thing is, it's very hard to convince an administrator like me to switch to it, due to the fact that they are basically a hardware designed software. It was designed by a hardware engineer, that's why it looks and feels and operates like hardware. To change it to a software doesn't sit right. In comparison, when you use Veeam, you feel like you are managing a cloud. You feel that you are managing something on the top. When you're using Micro Focus Data Protector, on the other hand, you feel that you are directly communicating with the device. It's just as bumpy and not as satisfying as compared to Veem, which is compact and light.

Every time there is a backup running, I cannot predict anything, so I cannot say if it will back up the first time. Data Protector has a status bar. You need to wait and see.

Their flexibility of their reporting needs improvement. You cannot save. You need to copy/paste. It may have appeared flexible in the 1990s, however, it's 2020 now. We need a flexible reporting of all that is happening on the Data Protector. We don't need to focus too much on the data, we need to focus on the maintenance of the machine. There needs to be a focus on analytical reports. We need answers to questions like: "Am I going to lose capacity?" "Do I still have enough space?" "Do I still have enough capacity for the cloud?" Data Protector should analyze these things for you, and alert you if you need to increase capacity.  

The solution needs more mobile capabilities. If I cannot see your product on my mobile, you're not worth considering. Nowadays, that's a basic requirement for an administrator.

There is no place in the world that is not connected to the internet or IoT. There is a lot to be done that the competitors are already doing for the last four years. 

The solution needs to change their support agreement. It was changed from traditional to capacity. That means the product is now only targeting big companies. As it stands now, they cannot really market to smaller organizations because their capacity is not that much. Licensing should be flexible for small businesses all the way up to enterprise-level businesses.

Once you perform a backup for a huge amount of data, you cannot browse it. You cannot browse a specific characteristic of that data on the database in order to find a file. If the file is large, you need to restore it. With Veem, you can view it even if it's inside the archive. It gives you the assurance it's actually there. The solution needs to have a good explorer for administrators. I need to have the flexibility of viewing where I put my data. When it is going to the tape, the tape is totally encrypted. You need to restore it before you know what is inside. It's a big waste of time.

I've been using the solution since 2007. It's been well over a decade.

When the Micro Focus acquired this product, they changed the way it was supported. Before, when HP was doing it, technical questions were handled by after-sales support. Usually, they would take three days, at the minimum, to get help if you have of any trouble. 

The good thing about Data Protector is that they now have levels of support. They have three levels and you can request it personally. Basically, if the first agent doesn't detect your problem or solve the issue, the customer can take the initiative to say to the agent, "Now, we want to go level two". The agent does not make that call for the customer. 

As of just this year, technical support has really stepped up their game. They've changed. They're amazing.

We have had backup solutions before, with another vendor, before we started with this solution in 2007

The initial setup is mostly straightforward. An example of a complex installation for me, would be Microsoft Exchange. Micro Focus Data Protector is still a bit of a gray area, but it's easier. It's not modular. You always need to copy the whole SAN in order for you to achieve success.

It's an easy deployment. It's a basic server from the client to the device. It's a little bit of a two-step pattern compared to the Symantec Back Exec deployment, which is the simplest way to install your backup solution. With Data Protector, there are a few additional steps. That said, implementation is easy once you know what you're doing.

The length of time it takes to deploy is approximately 45 minutes for a single server. With clustering, it might take two hours. Now with SAN storage, it might take you a half-day, due to the configuration.

Give me a basic set up, and I can do it within 30 to 45 minutes. I can set the servers up, install the binary, have it detect the media, and then I can deploy the agent and backup any machine.

I don't have the storage inside my server, the storage is connected somewhere else. Connecting the configuration, depending on how I presented the device to the Data Protector, could be 30 minutes to half a day.

For maintenance, ideally, one site should have three engineers. However, in our environment, I am the only backup administrator for five sites. I would say that's understaffed for the solution.

Recently, we've seen a huge improvement in the licensing team. They're now phenomenal.

I've also looked at Veem and have downloaded both solutions for free.

We have a service level agreement with Micro Focus.

I cannot say that Data Protector is the perfect tool for my aim. Data Protector is losing to the competition day by day due to the fact that there are so many other features on the market. Data Protector doesn't need to copy their competition, but they at least have to have an offering that's equivalent. Especially now, looking at the console, there's been no money put into updates or UI, especially if you compare it from 2007 until the present day.

The technology itself is proven and it is working fine. 

I have a lot of machines, so I have room to play with the solution. Data Protector is great, however, after using Veem, I can see now where it could be improved. I'd rate it overall seven out of ten. If Data Protector offered a cloud version with better graphical interfaces, plus more analytics and reporting, I'd give it higher marks.