AWS Backup could improve because you cannot use Glacier for anything but EFS.

There are some limitations to partial backup in AWS Backup. If we have five volumes attached to EC2 and want to take backup for only three volumes and skip two volumes, it is not feasible in AWS Backup.

While the solution is good, it is lagging in critical features. Currently, it lacks a solution for Kubernetes backup. Let's say if we have databases within our infrastructure; there is no designated mechanism for backing up applications. Although they offer app-level backups for services that use relational databases provided by them, this feature is not available if we're running our database in the AWS cloud.

If AWS could also add some hybrid cloud features to AWS Backup, that would be a significant improvement.

For example, currently, AWS Backup only backs up to the S3 and Amazon Cloud, and you can only restore from the Amazon Cloud only. However, some people have hybrid environments. They have some workloads on-premises and some workloads in the cloud. 

So if AWS Backup could work in a way where we could back up on-premises to the Amazon Cloud, and then if something goes wrong on-premises, we could restore it in the cloud and make it work there, that would be a valuable feature.

So, a hybrid cloud flow feature would be beneficial.

The service disconnects a lot. We configured AWS with VMware, and it's hard to configure because you have to configure the Black gateway and the gateway you connect to VMware. We didn't know what the issue with the gateway was. When we designed this and did the evaluation, we had to run a console application and console commands to verify the backup status, and it gave some errors that were hard to troubleshoot. This was one of the reasons we did not continue with it. Also, when you start, you don't know what's happening with the backups. You start the backup, and then you don't know the progress because there is no indication of where we have reached, like a progress bar. Likewise, there was no indication from the source that the backup was being processed. In the end, we got a notification "backup failed" as an error. We had to troubleshoot what the error was, and that was the main issue with AWS Backup.

Hybrid cloud capabilities could be improved.

AWS does have solutions, but it's probably not the best when you have both on-premise data center and Cloud. Unless you bring in AWS Outpost or other AWS solutions, configuring or leveraging AWS backup is not easy. If it's completely Cloud, then it's great. If you've Cloud and on-prem. Then, you have to bring in another AWS product or utility to leverage backup from your on-premise data center.

When it comes to encrypting data, it is not so convenient. When it comes to regular data backup, AWS Backup is pretty efficient. But when encryption is involved, there are two options: either encrypt the entire dataset or keep it completely unencrypted. 

However, in real-life scenarios, partial encryption is often desired. For example, I might want 80% of the data to be in plain text, while 20% needs to be masked or encrypted. So, in terms of backup and recovery, I believe there is still room for improvement in providing a solution that addresses this need in the market.

There is one particular feature I would greatly appreciate. It relates to data encryption. It would be beneficial to have specific data encryption options available for the entire dataset that we intend to encrypt.

I haven't thought about what needs improvement in the solution since it is a comprehensive solution for services related to backup and restoration.

I think the solution could be optimized further to make it capable of providing an easier user experience. To create a plan and for all the configuration, one has to do multiple steps, which could be organized in a much simpler way, making the user experience better.

In the future release, the solution should be able to provide its users with some notification when a backup is about to expire.

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

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. 

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.

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

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.

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.

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.

Only the price could be improved. 

The AWS Backup backend reporting is a major area that needs improvement. We would be very excited if we can see some reporting, such as trends. We do understand that there are reports available for S3 Bucket, in which the AWS backend stores the data. However, if we can receive holistic reporting, then it would be very helpful for us.

They should improve the installation process. Presently, it requires a bit of customization to implement it.

The notifications on the backup and on the mobile app could be more useful. If they could arrange notes or notifications properly and offer services for managing it in our region, it would be helpful for us.

If AWS Backup were a hybrid solution that also supported on-premises backups then it would be very helpful, especially if you are doing a migration to the cloud. Ideally, I would like to take an AWS snapshot, move it to a storage vault, and then migrate it to the cloud. That would be a nice strategy and it would mean that I don't need to use two different backup approaches.

There is room for improvement in customer service and support. 

For additional functionalities, it should be more intelligent, like more AI-capabilities. 

This backup tool does the full backup of the entire snapshot server. I would like to have the option to not do the full server backup.