Azure Site Recovery Review

Easy to set up but it needs better block-level recovery


What is most valuable?

We haven't really found any of the features to be valuable. It's around five years behind other market leaders. We prefer to use VMware products for site recovery software.

What needs improvement?

We need to be able to move the virtual servers and not build and then port them across. They need to improve the hypervisor.

For how long have I used the solution?

I have been using Site Recovery since 2015. 

What do I think about the stability of the solution?

It is a very stable product and very scalable. If you've got existing technology it is very very difficult to move across.

How are customer service and technical support?

I would rate their technical support as six out of ten.

Which solution did I use previously and why did I switch?

We use VMware Site Recovery Manager. 

How was the initial setup?

The initial setup is fairly easy. It's feature-diluted. It's quite easy to set up. You do need support from Microsoft though if you're going to get the most out of it. Their support isn't so good. We prefer to use our partners. We've gotten little support and little help from them. They're not as knowledgeable as our own partners. 

We've invested nearly 20 million pounds in Azure and it's been an absolute disaster for us.

We've got three full-time administrators, which is quite high. That supports 10,000 people but we are 95% of our services actually in VMware.

What other advice do I have?

In the next release, I would like to see better block-level recovery. It is key. Bare metal recovery and block-level recovery. 

I would rate Azure Site Recovery a four out of ten. If you start from scratch, it's fine. 

Which deployment model are you using for this solution?

Hybrid Cloud
**Disclosure: I am a real user, and this review is based on my own experience and opinions.
Add a Comment
Guest