AWS Backup Reviews

We use the product to schedule data backup, restoration, and encryption. It helps with real-time data recovery.

AWS Backup provides easy backup/restore solution for our Cloud resources with a low to zero failure rate compared to other solutions.

It is a complete backup solution. It is sufficient for our use cases.

There could be a centralized dashboard with a reporting feature notifying us of daily backup status.

We have been using AWS Backup for five years.

The platform is stable. Once it is set up, I never have to look back at it. I rate the stability a ten out of ten.

I am extremely satisfied with AWS Backup's scalability and rate it a ten. I don't see any performance degradation during backups.

The technical support services are quite excellent, depending on specific licensing plans.

Positive

We use Commvault for on-premise infrastructure and AWS backup for cloud environments. In comparison, Commvault is more complicated to use than AWS.

The initial setup includes adding a tag to the managed resource. It includes backup plans specifying the frequency. The process is pretty straightforward.

It requires a few hours to complete. One executive is enough to manage the cloud servers. However, it needs more than one executive to extend it to on-premises.

The product is inexpensive. It costs nothing apart from the storage.

I rate AWS Backup an eight out of ten. It meets all the international governance compliance. It is easier to use and set up. It doesn't require any maintenance. It provides an easy data migration process from on-premise to cloud. I strongly recommend AWS Backup over other products.

We only use the product for backups. We propose it to some clients. 

We like that it is a cloud-native backup solution. Native tools are seamless and less effort is needed when using them.  It is easy to configure. The product itself is user-friendly.

It works well as a backup and as a service. It's not cumbersome at all. 

We're not really looking into areas of improvement right now. We do deployments and migrations and hand them over to the client. It's the client's responsibility to manage everything after that. 

It could be less expensive. 

I've been dealing with the solution for three years. 

The solution is stable. It's robust and very resilient. There are no bugs or glitches. It doesn't crash or freeze. 

This is a scalable solution. It's easy to expand. 

We've implemented this solution for three or four clients so far.

We don't deal with or offer technical support. I don't have any insights into how well technical support functions. 

We do work with a variety of solutions and advise our clients in terms of what would work best for them.

The solution differs from case to case, project to project. We'll propose and install this solution if the client is looking for some sort of cloud-native offering. 

It's pretty straightforward for us. There is some standard documentation you can reference, which is provided. With the appropriate execution, everything goes smoothly. 

We do the configuration as well and find it pretty easy.

How long it takes to deploy depends on the knowledge level of the resource. When we set it up so that it is like a template that can be replicated, and things can be automated using scripts. The initial implementation takes a bit more time since you are doing everything from scratch. 

We work with multiple clients and do architecting, migrating, designing, and implementing solutions such as this. 

The pricing varies according to a company's goals and requirements. If a company can agree to long-term use, they likely can arrange a discount. 

I'd rate the general cost seven out of ten in terms of affordability. 

Whether we recommend this solution depends on the client's requirements. It is efficient, robust, cost-effective, and resilient. In general, it is something I would tell potential users to look at.

I'd rate the solution eight out of ten. 

AWS Backup is a basic backup that we can use if we want. We can directly back up EC2 instances in AWS without using any third-party applications.

AWS Backup is an AWS service that's not fully mature and needs to grow. It doesn't give us many options. AWS Backup doesn't have many features, and it's complicated.

The solution's reporting features and restore features can be improved. The solution's backup schedule time should be improved because it does not start at the scheduled time. So, it's not a fully matured backup product.

AWS Backup should include multiple restoring options.

I have been using AWS Backup for more than three years.

AWS Backup is a stable solution.

AWS Backup is a scalable solution.

AWS Backup's initial setup is easy.

AWS Backup is a very cheap solution.

Since people prefer the same vendor, I would suggest AWS Backup to other users.

Overall, I rate AWS Backup a seven out of ten.

We use the solution for disaster recovery features.

The solution is easy to set up and manage.

The solution's price could be better than a few other vendors.

I rate the solution’s stability an eight.

The solution is scalable. I rate its scalability an eight.

The solution's technical support team is friendly. It manages critical problems efficiently.

Positive

The solution’s initial setup process is easy.

The solution's price is much cheaper than some vendors but more expensive than others.

The solution is easy to use. I rate it a nine out of ten.

AWS is the primary platform that we use for our internal needs and we are trying to best use whatever comes with it. So far, we are happy with AWS and we have 30% or 40% of our workflows implemented there. For example, we are very big SAP users and we use SAP HANA on AWS. In the future, we expected almost everything to be in AWS, with perhaps 10% of our work in Azure.

We use the AWS Backup as a service to perform native backups and recovery of files and other data. It is also our disaster recovery solution.

The most valuable feature is its ease of use.

One of the limitations of AWS Backup is that it only does file-based copying. It is not as good as some of the external products for handling things like the Oracle Database backups. For example, it lacks the ability to do database backups and differential backups. It is doesn't keep a schedule, and it doesn't keep full track of success and failure. Overall, the functionality is pretty limited, although it does meet our requirements. For places that have deeper requirements, they use different software to do their backups.

In the future, I would like AWS Backup to be more robust and be able to handle database-level backups. It should support Oracle, MySQL, and other types of databases.

Better integration with standard backup management tools that provide control, such as the ability to schedule backups, would be an improvement.

We are been using AWS Backup for more than two years.

This is a stable solution.

AWS Backup is scalable. It is used to back up environments and not really for end-users. In our internal IT departments, we have probably 50 people using it.

We have reached out to AWS support and our technical architecture manager has a relationship with them. We provide constant feedback with respect to how the product is and what improvements need to be done. The developers are aware and they try to improve the features, but it's a slow process.

The initial setup is very simple. There is not much to it. We just need to run some primitive scripts.

The suitability of this solution for backup and recovery depends on the requirements. I would only recommend it for organizations that need a very simple solution.

There is a lot of work that they need to do in the backup space because, at this time, it only does very basic backups. They don't appear to be prioritizing the building of a robust backup solution. It seems that they are more interested in having us work with another vendor, rather than them creating something that is already available.

I would rate this solution a six out of ten.

We are a solution provider and we use AWS Backup for our customers' companies.

We typically install this product on-premises, although it is easy to extend as a center in the cloud. Many our of customers are multi-cloud, using cloud provides such as Azure, AWS, and Google.

We are able to set up a continuous backup from our customers' on-premise hardware to the cloud.

The most valuable feature is the snapshot capability, where we backup applications to a secondary site.

The restore functionality is an area that needs to be improved because right now, it is not very good. It requires a lot of time to connect the snapshot, identify the files, and restore a single file manually. 

In general, I would like to better manage the granular restoration of files. This is true both in a Linux environment, as well as Windows. A lot of our clients are using Linux for their application servers.

We want to be able to restore either single files or multiple files from one volume. Today, it is very complex because it requires us to restore the full image of the volume. Only after that, can we extract a single file. Ideally, we should be able to extract a single file from a snapshot.

We have been working with AWS Backup for between five and six years.

This is a stable product.

This is a scalable product and we have 1,000 different machines that are being backed up. Our customers are typically enterprise-level companies.

The technical support from Amazon is good.

We don't have much contact with them because I have an assistant engineer, and the two of us know AWS very well.

I have not worked with our cloud-based backup solutions.

For on-premises systems, I work with different products such as Commvault.

The initial setup is very simple. Typically it is very fast to set up, and it is not complex. It does not require much activity from us.

For example, we don't have to install infrastructure on the cloud. The license covers the management of the environment, including updates, and all of this is handled by AWS rather than our customers.

Our customers pay a monthly AWS fee that includes the AWS Backup service.

It is important to pay attention to the consumption within different services and manage it properly. However, this is true for all of AWS and not particularly the Backup service.

The advantage that AWS Backup has over competitors is that it's very simple. It is fully integrated into the cloud services, it's very fast, and it's simple to manage.

This is a product that I can recommend for scenarios that are not too complex. For situations where one consultant wants to manage different on-premises backups in a multi-cloud environment, they require different products. Not a single solution, like AWS Backup.

My advice for anybody who is implementing this product is to pay attention to the data transfer across different availabilities and different regions because it can be a very high cost.  

I would rate this solution an eight out of ten.

We use AWS backup for the VMware environment.

It is a good backup solution for monthly and central backups. It is useful for CR S3 Bucket and moving it.

It also saves costs and is quick.

They should work on their visual capabilities. 

We have to restore the entire stack. We can only restore particular files on particular days. I hope they can help to release storage and instead of a specific file, we can access the entire stack.

I have experience using AWS Backup. 

There are some issues regarding stability, especially when the user doesn't have much experience with the solution and they don't work with the solution on a daily basis. 

The technical support depends on the vendor.

We previously used Symantec solutions. 

The initial setup was easy and it didn't take much time. It doesn't require more than an hour, until and unless anything specific is required. It has specific scripts so that specific backup users can have access to different environments. 

Since we are a small organization, we didn't have much technical expertise and had a vendor install it. It also doesn't require much maintenance until and unless you have a large organization with huge data, you might need to maintain it. 

It is not a bad solution. It majorly depends on your organization, as each tool has its own flaws and advantages. If you take direct support from Amazon, you might have a better experience. In our case, we are dependent on the vendor which has delays. However, we are working to change it. I would rate the overall solution an eight out of ten.

We use it for server backup, which is done weekly.

I'm also using AWS for QuickSight. It's been about four months since I'm using it for some statistical analysis. I'm still on that project, which is also AWS.

When I was using an on-premises backup, there was an external hard drive or something like that. I had a backup server, but I had a few problems related to transfer when I had to restore something that I have deleted. I had to wait for after-office hours to do something like that, but now I just have to send a mail. Within one hour, I have my restored file.

Only the price could be improved. 

I have been using this solution for about two years. 

We do not do anything in terms of contacting AWS support. A company we use for support does that for us.

We use a company for support. It is an IT company in Mauritius, and they normally do everything for us. They do the deployment and everything. We just have to use their support.

We don't use a lot of space, only approximately 900 GB, so the price is reasonable. For standing, it's okay. We normally do a payment to SSML, and they are the ones who pay over there. It is around $100 monthly.

I think we compared AWS and Azure, but we decided to take AWS because it is ranked as the number one for backup support. It was also about the cost etc. Normally, the directors make the final decision, and they were the ones who finalized about using AWS. The same applies to QuickSight. The director, who finalized it, is also the CEO of another company, and over there, he was using QuickSight, and he wanted to implement it here in our company.

For me, it's great. I would rate AWS Backup a nine out of ten.