Veritas NetBackup Reviews

The primary use case is for archiving.

The most valuable feature is that it is basically a replica of our SAN data. We archive the SAN data for recovery, if there is an issue on the fence.

I think that the licensing model needs improvement. 

The stability is fine.

As it scales, it becomes expensive.

Our experience with tech support is mostly positive. But, we had some repeat issues and tech support was not entirely responsive to our needs.

The licensing model is cost-prohibitive as you scale out. 

No, we did not evaluate any other options. We only tried this solution in our environment.

I would advise not to use this tool. I think between the licensing issues and the older solution mentality it is not a great solution. They really have not kept up with the times. 

It is for backing up servers. It has performed well.

It is essential. We can't do without it.

Its most valuable features are flexibility and reliability.

• It needs support for Kernel-based Virtual Machines (KVMs).
• Some of the hardware is out of support. 
  
• The product is not able to keep up with other competitors in the market.
  

Stability is very good.

Scalability is very good.

Their support is pretty good.

I have been involved in upgrades. They have not been straightforward. Some of them have required us to make changes to our architecture and production environment.

We are currently evaluating EMC Avamar and NetWorker.

I would recommend the product. It is a good product.

Most important criteria when selecting a vendor: The product does what it says it does and it supports all our needs.

• Ease to use
• Friendly interface
• Logs are very easy to read, parse, and use for diagnostics.

Backup for over 10,000 jobs with a failure rate under 0.5%.

I am not interested in any features because I have worked with all of the backup solutions that are now available in the market.

The restore tool is not friendly to newcomers. It takes some of our storage and backup admin/support a long time to wrestle with it, but then they have enough knowledge to work even with NetBackup competitors.

We have encountered some issues when upgrading to 8.1 due to data which could not transfer in plain (non-encrypted over network). However, it has now been resolved.

Fully scalable.

Almost all issues can be resolved by experience admins, even though some really difficult problems have to be raise with vendors.

I’ve seen organisations using NetBackup efficiently improving on data protection and recovery while reducing potentially huge costs due to the features I’ve mentioned above.

• Backup compatibility with most of the existing, legacy, and emerging softwares, filesystems, databases, and technologies.
• User-friendliness.
• Ease of installing, configuring, upgrading, and troubleshooting.
• Support services.
• Features like deduplication, FlashBackup, GRT, BMR, snapshot backups for virtual machines, cloud backup integration, duplication, and AIR (Auto Image Replication) feature.

Veritas is already consistently and proactively developing the backup software to make it more compatible and efficient with the latest and emerging technologies. I feel they should stick to this development and increase the pace of this development a bit more to cope up with the current need of data protection market.

There have been issues with performance and some features. However, the support is proactive and they resolve them in a timely fashion to the best of our knowledge.

Nothing so far.

10 out of 10.

We used TSM earlier. We switched to NetBackup primarily for its valuable features (as mentioned above).

Easy in terms of setting up the three tier NetBackup domain. Challenges were encountered though while setting up other aspects like network, resiliency, firewalls, etc.

I can’t comment much as there’s not much visibility on this aspect. However, I’d advise mostly to go for a capacity based license for mid to large scale organisations.

Go for it! It’s the best available backup software in the market.

Data replication among critical DCs across regions.

AIR and duplication, overall management and troubleshooting.

DDBoost.

Not since version 7 and higher.

The number of media servers is restricted and this should be pointed out by the vendor.

Quite good. Seven out of 10.

We switched due to better scalability and overall app management.

It's pretty straightforward for a simple configuration but much more complex for a large environment, with many features and tuning required.

Acceptable if you need to implement it for larger environments, e.g. over 1000 clients. For smaller setups it might be too expensive.

IBM TSM, EMC NetWorker.

This is a mature product, one of the market leaders, so if you can afford to purchase and have significant infrastructure to be protected, then go ahead and speak to Veritas.

We are an SMB, but for our client, it is a life saver.

• TAR importing
• Scriptable scheduling
• Central catalog
• Local and remote backup
• DLO: Client for laptops
  

• Integration
• Setup implementation

There were no issues with stability.

There were no issues with scalability yet. However, our largest customer barely has 100 NBU clients.

On Veritas, the response time is good.

Our customers have used a very wide variety of options. However, almost all of them switched due to better handling time, straight line backup, recover windows, integration with BD, and better archiving options.

The initial setup varies from customer to customer. Most setups are straightforward, but they tend to be complex over time, due to adding DR sites, alternative media, and tuning backup times.

Personally, I'd tell them to make an inventory of what they want to backup, how often, and the size of backup and recovery windows. After that, we talk about how their requirements weigh in on the pricing/licensing. After that, then the real thing starts.

We evaluated several solutions, including free/open source options and we ran some trials.

Always leave room for more options.

Restores individual emails simply for users when requested.
Catalog is user-friendly, and finds all important information about any media needed for a restore request.

• Wide systems could be backup/restored; multiple databases, Granular restore capabilities for individual MS-Exchange Emails and normal folders/files
• NDMP backup capability for NAS storage
• Virtual environment backup/restore capabilities
• OST backup capabilities
• Could be used for both of Physical and Virtual Environments.

The ability to use different disk appliance brands as Pure Disk (not OST), such as EMC Data Domain .

No, it is so stable.

No, it scales efficiently.

8 out of 10.

EMC Networker (Legato).

Setup of FC (Fiber) backup is complex.

It is suitable for an enterprise solution.

IBM Tivoli, EMC Data Networker (Legato).

Backup using Fiber Optical connections.
Use Veritas Disk Appliance for deduplication and other valuable benefits.

It helped us to:

• Improve the backup success and recovery rate.
• Reduce the window to backup.
• Automate database backups.
• Automate the disk-based offsite to the other location as part of the disaster recovery plan.

The Replication Director, Auto Image Replication, Accelerator, Oracle Intelligent Policy, synthetic and VADP backups are the most valuable features.

The virtual environment, cloud integration, copy data management features need improvement.

There were no stability issues.

There were no scalability issues.

Technical support is excellent.

Initially, we were using IBM TSM and Legato Networker (now EMC NetWorker). However, due to the support and legacy of the product features, we switched over to this solution.

The setup was straightforward, it is easy to configure and user-friendly to administer.

Pricing is pretty costly as compared to the other products but worth investing for the long term and high ROI.

We looked at HPE Data Protector and Commvault.

It is an excellent product, i.e., if you are looking for a stable and performance oriented backup infrastructure with improved RPO and RTO.