OpenText Data Protector Reviews

From a data protection standpoint, HPE Data Protector reduced our and our customer’s recovery time. It also gave them an advantage in the industry in that they are able fall back quicker.

Reduced backup times, and it helped with security mitigation from a data protection standpoint.

I don't use it today on a regular basis, but there are always feature improvements that our customers are looking for, such as more integration from an API perspective with different applications and cloud platforms. Also, broader integration to the ecosystem as it relates to the cloud and the application API.

We didn't have too many problems. It was fairly stable.

We contacted technical support a couple of times during upgrades, but I wouldn't say that the issues were anything out of the ordinary or systemic.

The initial setup was fairly straightforward. We did not have any difficulties.

There's always a bake-off process between competing products regarding feature sets, like Symantec. Customers typically go through a list of criteria as they relate to applications, and how they're trying to protect data, such as how it's encrypted at rest and in flight. These are decisions we all have to make. Other issues are whether there was encryption inflate, was it encrypted at rest, how many GO's did I need to protect that data, and what the replication scheme looked like.

With respect to HPE data protection, you need to do the mapping with respect to what you're looking for. From my own personal experience, HPE was a pretty seamless install from an operational perspective.

But, I never want to be involved in data protection again. It's a thankless job, but a necessary evil.

I can rely on this backup and recovery software, if we have a disaster, to recover the data.

The number one benefit of the solution is that our hardware is HP, so it makes sense to keep standardization, as far as backups are concerned and obviously ease of use.
We can rely on it if we have to get into a disaster situation, so it has absolutely improved how my organization functions from that perspective.

I would like to see it incorporate all of the new forms of cloud backup and similar items, absolutely. With the transition from on-prem to obviously cloud solutions, our backups need to be more cloud-ready, so to speak.

It is extremely stable.

With scalability, there are a few limitations. However, the product is pretty fair in terms of scalability.

It's limited to certain platforms. It could cover a wider variety of platforms more easily and not be so cost-intensive.

We have logged calls with technical support. We've had a few challenges, but they've managed to overcome them. Technical support has been good.

I've been involved in a few iterations of upgrades and that seems to have gone quite seamlessly.

We conducted three comparisons and HPE were one of the top. There were better ones, but at a higher price. HP seems to be the most fit for purpose and the most cost effective.

We looked at solutions like Redstone, we looked at a product called Veeam and obviously the third product being Oxove.

Obviously, standardization played a big role in the decision to invest in this solution; the fact that we’ve got an HP house, so obviously, from that perspective; as well as the reliability of the software.

The reason why we chose this category of solution is that we're an enterprise, and Data Protector is an enterprise DLP solution.

When we chose the solution, reliability was absolutely the most important criteria, and we’re absolutely satisfied.

I recommend the product, based on my experiences, obviously; being able to recover when we're required to get some data back; it is extremely reliable; and obviously the scalability and transforming the business as well.

Restarting the failed session, where you don’t need to run a whole selection list backup.

Newer DP versions even have a resume feature, which should allow you to continue from the point of failure, instead of ruining the whole partition in case of a “restart failed objects“ error.

There are lots of bugs around; inability to downgrade version, issues with version upgrades, etc. For example, Data Protector version 8 didn’t have a properly working restore feature; the next upgrade came within week. All kinds of small things required workarounds and support engagement to find some tweak within the config files.

When comparing other backup software, such as BackupExec for example which I have used at the same time as Data Protector. For BackupExec our backup team did raise one vendor case throughout four years, while for Data Protector, we had three to four vendor cases opened every month. That is just in general, as I really do not remember all the details for all those, I dont know, but hundreds of cases opened with HP Data Protector support. What I remember we didn‘t have a single patching/upgrade of Data Protector version without issues, which could only be solved by HP Data Protector vendor support. While for BackupExec it was always smooth and any issues we encountered we were able to solve them on our own.

I have been using it for 4+ years.

I have not encountered any deployment, stability or scalability issues.

Customer service is great.

Technical support is great.

We switched because of company policy, the tapes aged, etc.

Initial setup was straightforward.

I was within the support team, which did implement as well as support the solution.

Huge. Simply eliminating the need for tape changers returned the cost of the hardware within less than half a year.

Get an expert who knows the products, so you can get the best prices possible for both DP and StoreOnce. Because there are some things that can work for the same solution in different ways, hence they are differently licensed as well as priced.

Make sure architecture is planning properly, e.g., centralised or decentralised HPE DP Cell Managers give you some quite different options and etc.

The ability to run multiple jobs to multiple devices and systems is the best part of this system. The limit is the hardware that the software runs on.

In recent years, I would say this product has held us back rather than improving us. However, I would say also that the biggest improvement is its ability to back up the ESXi hosts over the SAN fabric as long as the disks are presented to the backup host.

This product is lagging behind most of its competitors. It is still expensive to add features and the ESXi integration is terrible -- you have to restore a whole VMDK to then get the ability to restore a file. There is no library of ESXi servers and the plug-in fails most of the time.

The integration into core products -- Exchange, SharePoint, and VMware, being some -- is just not as good as other vendors.

We've had no issues deploying it.

The database is vastly improved and it's much more stable. Rarely does it get corrupted like in the older versions.

We haven't had issues scaling it.

HP moved the support and, with it, any faith of any resolution to most tickets. It takes days to get something solved as you battle with the automated emails from the tier ½ support people.

It's expensive to add features.

The product is very stable and will work. However, it has lacked serious funding over the years and other products have overtaken it.

My advice to HPE is to start investing as you are letting this great product slip away.

• Backup to Disk with StoreOnce software catalyst
• Disaster Recovery
• Zero downtime backup

Data Protector helps us to maintain data consistency and recover data with minimum downtime. We can recover the user-specific data when there is data loss, such as a mailbox or file server.

Having dual-cell manager in the environment at primary and secondary sites, data restoration and services can be made up in case the primary site goes down completely.

• Technical Support
• Troubleshooting
• Restore using multi-path
• Restore for Microsoft Exchange
• GRE

I've used it for more than seven years.

I've had no issues with deploying it.

There isn't much instability as the product has been stable with the exception of a few bugs during upgrades.

There have been no issue with scalability until now for mid-level datacenters.

4/10

Technical support is very poor and I would rate it as 1/10. The response from L1 is very slow and there is no handover when the engineer finishes the shift. There's no direct interaction with the L2 or L3, which makes the case take more time. L1 basically behaves as a mediator for transferring the information from the customer to L2 or L3, and they don't perform any troubleshooting.

I haven't migrated a customer with different solution to Data Protector, but I have seen a customer move from Data Protector to Avamar, Veeam, and Commvault, who had better product offerings.

The initial setup is straightforward if you understand the architecture correctly.

We implemented it with out in-house team.

Licensing is categorized for each sub component rather than on the basis of services which is what we would like. For example, there is one license for all GREs, and similarly one license for all zero downtime backup products.

No other options were looked at.

It's easy to learn for new users, not complicated, and has a simple backup and restore procedure. Last but not the least, it's easy to recover in case of disaster. The drawback is that there is some inconsistency and bugs with the level of technical support.

I would recommend the product to others keeping in mind the ease of implementation, maintenance of software, and easy backup and restore steps.

Our primary use is for disaster recovery, but the most frequent use is the restore function when a user accidentally deletes a file or two. Being able to restore the files quickly is extremely important.

We are required to provide an offsite location for our tape rotation, and we use the D2D function regularly. This function allows the backups to run faster and more efficiently.

I think the GUI needs a vast overhaul. DP has looked the same since its inception. The functionality has improved, but the interface is not attractive and a little clumsy.

We've had this solution for over eight years now. I've been the subject matter expert for it for the past five years. I've upgraded the solution from v6 to v10.

The deployment was standard, other than hardening the product for use in our secured environment.

There have been no issues with the stability.

When we need to upgrade or increase scalability, the procedure is quick and painless.

Customer service is good, not great. Usually when we need some level of assistance, hold times are about 20 - 25 minutes on the phone, or about two days via email (in response).

Tech support has been good and they are usually able to assist us once we get in contact with them.

We went with HP for their solution from the beginning. Since most of our hardware is HP, we decided to use them for this solution as well.

The initial setup was extremely straightforward. We have a great team of system engineers and they worked on getting the solution to run within our environment without any real issues. There weren't any real issues in getting the system setup and running.

We had the option of using professional services to do the installation, however, we chose to do it ourselves. Just think about an overall design, what your current and future needs are, and implement for the future.

I'm not sure in dollars our ROI, but the system has definitely paid for itself time and time again. We've used it for basic backups/restores and have successfully utilized it in our disaster recovery plan.

The product works as described in our environment, but we are required to harden the application, which causes some backup failures. Otherwise, the D2D function and backups/restores function fine.

The only advice I'd offer is to plan your backup solution with great detail. Make sure it will fit within your infrastructure and that the system is scalable. Make sure licensing is understood and that there are professional services available to implement the system in case your team needs assistance.

It’s a very user friendly, easy to understand restore platform. The good thing about DP is that there is a Windows GUI version. This saves a lot of time and effort when one is learning on recovering using commands. The report generated by DP is very detailed as well.

It gives a good overview of which tape library and tape drives are connected, and gives you the ability to restore selected portions of the tape and not necessarily the whole tape. You can even control the tape library using this software.

When you unplug a laptop with the GUI version from the network, the restoration status will be terminated and will not update even if you try to connect it back. Which means to say, that I need to leave my laptop on and connected throughout the whole restore process, so that I can keep track of the restore status. There could have been an existing workaround for this, not that I know of one.

I haven't had any issues with deployment.

See the above Areas for Improvement.

I haven't had any issues with scalability.

Overall, when compared with other restore solutions, I can say most of the good features are packed inside a software that has a small footprint.

This is the most difficult difficult question to answer because in order to get certain things done, we need to go to v9 or to a product like Unitrends or Arcserve.

As time goes on, it actually becomes a handicap. It requires too much storage and there are holes where backups should be.

Reporting is definitely an area for improvement, as well as scheduling and the way that pools are created and grouped. Some of these are fixed in v9.

We've used it for approximately eight years. We came from version 6.1 and upgraded to 7.xx.

There were no issues with the deployment.

The integration with MaxDB and MS SQL gave us problems as it is never working the way we expect. As they are certified, we expected it to work flawlessly, but it didn't.

There have been no issues with scaling it.

Once a solution is provided, it works and is OK, but it takes ages to get to that point, mainly due to the fact that we need to supply a lot of data from within a small pipeline, which doesn't always work. I have to admit that now that the new website is up and running, it is better than it was.

No, but we are actively looking for a solution that will put us in the next century. Personally, I believe that v9 combined with dedupe and 3PAR would be a good solution, but it still can't compete with the appliance from Unitrends with backup, storage and deduplication all-in-one.

Reading the manual and following instructions will result in a working version.

Test everything at least twice. Don't listen to others but do the actual tests, even the absurd ones like "suppose I lost my entire backup solution in a fire, let's start from scratch and try to get everything back from tapes and or disks and or remote replica."

I realize that v7 is almost out of support and we are looking to either upgrade or go for a different solution. In my experience with the sales and technical sales from HP, they have no fitting answer for our current solution unless we pay a lot of money for an assessment which will not guarantee anything. So if HP wants to improve their products, then being clearer about their product as a whole it would help. It took me weeks to find out what I could do with HP 3PAR and backups. From my point of view, they need fewer products and more integrated ones, especially backup and storage which are one and the same.