OpenText Data Protector Reviews

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 use the solution for backup data protection of on-premises, in-cloud, and virtual environments. Also, we use it for the features such as production tab and recall tool.

The solution is easy to use.

The solution's customer support service needs a lot of improvement. Presently, they take a long time to resolve simple issues.

I rate the solution's stability as a four. We face challenges with it, and the support team has not been able to fix them.

We have 2000 users of the solution in our organization. I rate its scalability as a six.

The solution's customer support service for setup and ongoing issues could be better. 

The solution's initial setup was easy, but it took two months to complete the process because of its poor technical support.

The solution's support team executed the deployment for us. It was a time-consuming process.

The solution's price is more reasonable than the other vendors.

If the solution's customer service improves, it will stand out as the best product compared to other vendors. I rate it as a five.

file backup and VM backup 

Nops, MFDP Solution is outdated in termes of current backup and protection requirements and we are forced to move to another solution 

The world has changed, growth is happening towards cloud capabilities, and this product is not that developed. If you were to ask me what I like about Micro Focus Data Protector previously, I would say that this product is a single platform manager. At that time there was not any competition. You got the backup guaranteed even if it took some time, but in the they recovered the file. It was a really strong backup solution which contained a single license for tender services. But now the world has changed. There is instant recovery available but they're still an application based backup model. They didn't evolve.

Micro Focus Data Protector must improve its overall evolution record. They need to focus on hardware-based instant recovery, client recovery, and cloud abilities. Now there is no cloud ability.

Another thing they need to work on is that they still lack bare-metal VM and bare-metal recovery models.

The third issue they need to improve, and at the top of the list, is that with the RTO and RPO, we cannot come to a customer as an industry best. Because what happens when you sell is that recovery takes the longest time. This is the pain point in the solution, that it takes time compared to instant recovery.

In terms of additional features I would like to see included in the next release of Micro Focus Data Protector, I will be looking for instant recovery features and for better reporting. To sum up, instant recovery and cloud ability (backup to cloud, return to cloud and restore).

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector in my current environment for about one and a half years and almost seven years total.

Currently, I can only give negative feedback because my experience in its current state is not up to the mark.

It is a traditional backup model. If you talk about file server and the official Windows database, it's a stable product.

But in the VM, nobody is looking for backup for the sake of backup, you are looking at backup for the sake of recovery. It's not frequent, but it happens, so any backup solution should not be focused just on what to backup but focused on how fast they can recover the data. That is the idea of Rubrik. The other competitors don't focus on backup, they focus on recovery. They talk about the instant recovery in backup, the RPO and RTO. When you talk about relation, the focus is towards stability and client complaints. And they still don't have their own dedicated hardware for the backup.

Nops

So I went from the Omni Backup to HP Data Protector to Micro Focus Data Protector. I have seen all three transition products. They have stopped developing. I don't know why that happened.

High in SA renewal cost for not future development 

Yes, at that time they are leaders in the backup

On a scale of one to ten, I would give Micro Focus Data Protector a three or three point five at the highest. If somebody wants to argue, I can go up to three point five, otherwise, three. It is very simple - they have not adopted the latest technologies. Micro Focus Data Protector works, but it's very slow and for the environment I'm running in there are better backups.

Micro Focus Data Protector is used for data backups.

The dashboards in Micro Focus Data Protector are very good. They are similar to the dashboards in Veeam Backup & Replication. 

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for approximately 16 years.

Micro Focus Data Protector is highly stable.

I have found Micro Focus Data Protector to be scalable.

The Micro Focus Data Protector support is not as good as Veeam Backup & Replication's support.

I have used Veritas and Veeam Backup & Replication.

The solution is easy to implement.

They have two types of licensing, one is for storage capacity and the other is client licensing. The capacity licensing here is a bit expensive.

If Micro Focus Data Protector has a universal license for every aspect of the operation, there would be no limit to us. For example, they have a different license for Exchange, Oracle, and SQL. You have to have an online license, it can be an expensive adventure.

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector an eight 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.

This product needs a lot of improvement both on the technical side and in its pricing and compatibility.

This solution is not scalable.

I don't think this product has a good support center.

The initial setup was relatively easy.

I would rate this solution as five out of ten.

Our primary use case is to back up databases, file systems, servers and information in the database.

Micro Focus Data Protector's most valuable feature is its interaction with the fiber share. It is easy to use, we use it to back up without any problem to VTLs, and can use the Fiber Channel that is still the TCP.

In terms of what can be improved, I would say integrations with MongoDB. We use MongoDB and we need to go to scripts to do backups. We need more integrations.

The feature I would like to see in the next release is only more integration with new databases.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for about 20 years.

We are currently using the latest update in some platforms. We are using version 10.

Its performance and stability are okay.

In terms of maintenance, we only need to do updates when we receive information. Not more than.

Micro Focus Data Protector is an easily scalable solution.

We have six people in my company using it.

The initial setup was simple for me because I am experienced and have used Data Protector for many years. It takes one hour maximum.

I would recommend Micro Focus Data Protector to other users.

On a scale of one to ten, compared with other solutions, I would give it a nine.

We use Micro Focus Data Protector to back up all our infra servers, plus file share and some VM backup.

The normal file system backup is easy to manage, and our success rate is quite high.

The scheduler setup could be better. We are facing some issues scheduling the job based on our requirements. Furthermore, if we want to change something, we have to run it through all the policies one by one. They don't have a central place to modify and apply it to all the policies. The virtual environment backup could also be better.

I have been using Micro Focus Data Protector for four years.

It's a stable solution, but every upgrade is such a headache. For example, we currently have to upgrade to a new version, but somehow the connection to storage isn't happening because there are issues with the library.

Micro Focus Data Protector is scalable. It's quite simple as we can just add on more media to fulfill all the requirements. Right now, a few thousand people use this solution in our organization.

We had a few cases through email, but one pain point is that they always go through to level one, go to level two, and so on. They spend a lot of time explaining what's going on before the problem is solved. 

Previously, we used Veritas Backup Exec. So, compared to Veritas Backup Execs, it's a little bit cheaper.

The initial setup is quite straightforward, like Master Media Server. 

Our licensing is on a capacity basis.

I wouldn't recommend Micro Focus Data Protector to be used as a cloud backup. But for on-premise and file share use, it's quite okay.

On a scale from one to ten, I would give Micro Focus Data Protector a seven.

The solution is used in protection across a heterogeneous computing environment.

What I like the most about this solution is that I can change and access the Oracle file. 

I would like to see a better user interface in the next release. 

I have used the solution for 20 years. 

In my experience, I found the solution to be stable.

The solution is scalable. There are approximately 10 users using it in my organization.

Since I am using the solution as a trainer, I have not used any technical support.  

I have used StorONE solution before. 

I have installed the solution myself. It was easy and took approximately 40 minutes. 

 There is one administrator necessary for the deployment of the solution. 

The solution requires paying for a license.

I would recommend the solution to others. 

I rate Micro Focus Data Protector an eight out of ten. 

The primary use case is mainly for data protection for both short-term and long-term retention. We are resellers of Micro Focus and I am a storage and backup engineer.

Many colleagues complain about poor and complicated implementation of VMWare granular recovery

The feature I like the most is the deduplication implementation with CAPA. It's very good. 

I think the VMware backup integration and the cloud recovery is lacking. I also found it difficult to implement the granular recovery solution with Micro Focus for both VMware integration backups and for exchange integration backups. Implementing this solution was a big challenge. Other products like Veeam, or NetBackup have a simpler and more user friendly solution than Micro Focus. Implementation really should be more straightforward. I'd like to see stronger integrations, and an easier setup for granular recovery. It's a feature that plays a great role for data protection.

I've been using this solution for 11 years. 

Stability depends on the platform. It's quite stable on a Linux platform but I've had bad experience in the past with Windows. I don't know if there is more stability with the new releases, but we abandoned the Windows platform for the core services of Data Protector. We're using Linux.

The scalability is okay although there are issues regarding the database. If you're installing the solution in a physical machine, and you have to extend the database, it's not so easy.  With virtual machines, it's easy to extend it. Scalability depends on the type of installation. I suggest deploying the core as a manager that contains the database, then if you need to scale up storage, you can easily extend the virtual disk in a short time.

Technical support has not been good recently and in several cases, I have found the solution myself. I would expect support to be able to manage these issues. 

We currently also use NetBackup and Veritas which are both more open to other systems. There is also the Veritas fast solution for appliances together with the pro. With Micro Focus, you need to contact the vendor for equipment for the storage device, and for the new servers and the physical middle servers. NetBackup and Veritas only have one vendor and we get everything from them. It makes it easier to prepare bonds and to design a solution for customers. Veritas also has integration for cloud-native backup, and we have integration for the backup storage before the middle server. There is also good integration with VMware and Data Protector. Micro Focus is not like that. We need three different vendors to provide the same solution.

The time it takes to set up a virtual machine with the software operating system is very quick if it's a new installation. But if it's an upgrade, it is quite difficult, because it takes time to convert the database to the new user. The performance of this product in the Windows platform is not great so we usually don't install it. With VMware, it is easy to attach the kit, the package ISO file. Then the setup is quite easy. In that sense, it's like the other products for this. It's probably more difficult than implementing in a network environment, with firewalls in between middle servers and clients, or between some manager and the new servers.

Implementation was in-house

This solution is a manager service. We resell this product with the manager service in our private cloud that we provide the customers so for us, it's a good price. However, I do think they should lower the price as there are other, better technologies available.

EMC Networker

I would rate this solution a six out of 10.