Compare Carbonite Migrate vs. CloudEndure Live Migration
Sponsored
 | Rodney Barnhardt Server\Storage Administrator at Charlotte Pipe and Foundry |
Use Carbonite Migrate? Share your opinion.
Use CloudEndure Live Migration? Share your opinion.
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp, Turbonomic, Cisco and others in Cloud Migration. Updated: July 2021.
522,281 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Quotes From Members
We asked business professionals to review the solutions they use. Here are some excerpts of what they said:
"I only deal with the infrastructure side, so I really couldn't speak to more than load balancing as the most valuable feature for me. It provides specific actions that prevent resource starvation. It always keeps things in perfect balance."
"I have the ability to automate things similar to the Orchestrator stuff. I do have the ability to have it do some balancing, and if it sees some different performance metrics that I've set not being met, it'll actually move some of my virtual machines from, let's say, one host to another. It is sort of an automation tool that helps me. Basically, I specify the metric, and if I get a certain host or something being over-utilized, it'll automatically move the virtual machines around for me. It basically has to snap into my vCenter and then it can make adjustments and move my virtual machines around. It also has some very nice reporting tools built around virtual machines. It tells you how much storage, memory, or CPU is being used monthly, and then it gives you a very nice way to be able to send out billing structure to your end users who use servers within your environment."
"It also brings up a list of machines and if something is under-provisioned and needs more compute power it will tell you, 'This server needs more compute power, and we suggest you raise it up to this level.' It will even automatically do it for you. In Azure, you don't have to actually go into the cloud provider to resize. You can just say, 'Apply these resizes,' and Turbonomic uses some back-end APIs to make the changes for you."
"The automated memory balancing, where it looks at whether it's being used in the most efficient way and adds or takes away memory, is the best part. If it didn't do that, it would be something that I would have to do. We have too many machines for one person to do that. The automation helps me in that it is done in a really efficient way and a balanced way because of the policies. It really helps."
"It has automated a lot of things. We have saved 30 to 35 percent in human resource time and cost, which is pretty substantial. We don't have a big workforce here, so we have to use all the automation we can get."
"The proactive monitoring of all our open enrollment applications has improved our organization. We have used it to size applications that we are moving to the cloud. Therefore, when we move them out there, we have them appropriately sized. We use it for reporting to current application owners, showing them where they are wasting money. There are easy things to find for an application, e.g., they decommissioned the server, but they never took care of the storage. Without a tool like this, that storage would just sit there forever, with us getting billed for it."
"Turbonomic has helped optimize cloud operations and reduced our cloud costs significantly. Overall, we are at about 40 percent savings, and we spend about three million a year just in Azure. It reduces the size of the VMs, putting them into the right template for usage. People don't realize that you don't have to future-proof a virtual machine in Azure. You just need to build it for today. As the business or service grows, you can scale up or out. About 90 percent of all the costs that we've reduced has been from sizing machines appropriately."
"We have a system where our developers automate machine builds, and that is constantly running out of resources. Turbonomic helps us with that, so I don't have to keep buying hardware. The developers always say, "They don't have enough. They don't have enough. They don't have enough," when they just configured it improperly. Therefore, Turbonomic helps us identify configuration issues on their side so it doesn't cost me money on the other end to buy resources that I don't really need."
"Carbonite Migrate is helpful on an infrastructure level."
"Carbonite Migrate works well in Windows platform migrations and in the case of a VML platform. The migration is smooth in Windows environments."
"The most valuable feature is the live, block-to-block replication."
Cons
"It would be good for Turbonomic, on their side, to integrate with other companies like AppDynamics or SolarWinds or other monitoring softwares. I feel that the actual monitoring of applications, mixed in with their abilities, would help. That would be the case wherever Turbonomic lacks the ability to monitor an application or in cases where applications are so customized that it's not going to be able to handle them. There is monitoring that you can do with scripting that you may not be able to do with Turbonomic."
"It sometimes does get false positives. Sometimes, it'll move something when it really wasn't a performance metric. I've seen it do that, but it's pretty much an automated tool for performance. We've only got about 500 virtual machines, so lots of times, I'm able to manage it physically, but it's definitely a nice tool for a larger enterprise that might be managing 2,000 or 3,000 virtual machines."
"There is room for improvement [with] upgrades. We have deployed the newer version, version 8 of Turbonomic. The problem is that there is no way to upgrade between major Turbonomic versions. You can upgrade minor versions without a problem, but when you go from version 6 to version 7, or version 7 to version 8, you basically have to deploy it new and let it start gathering data again. That is a problem because all of the data, all of the savings calculations that had been done on the old version, are gone. There's no way to keep track of your lifetime savings across versions."
"The planning and costing areas could be a little bit more detailed. When you have more than 2,000 machines, the reports don't work properly. They need to fix it so that the reports work when you use that many virtual machines."
"There are a few things that we did notice. It does kind of seem to run away from itself a little bit. It does seem to have a mind of its own sometimes. It goes out there and just kind of goes crazy. There needs to be something that kind of throttles things back a little bit. I have personally seen where we've been working on things, then pulled servers out of the VMware cluster and found that Turbonomic was still trying to ship resources to and from that node. So, there has to be some kind of throttling or ability for it to not be so buggy in that area. Because we've pulled nodes out of a cluster into maintenance mode, then brought it back up, and it tried to put workloads on that outside of a cluster. There may be something that is available for this, but it seems very kludgy to me."
"The issue for us with the automation is we are considering starting to do the hot adds, but there are some problems with Windows Server 2019 and hot adds. It is a little buggy. So, if we turn that on with a cluster that has a lot of Windows 2019 Servers, then we would see a blue screen along with a lot of applications as well. Depending on what you are adding, cores or memory, it doesn't necessarily even take advantage of that at that moment. A reboot may be required, and we can't do that until later. So, that decreases the benefit of the real-time. For us, there is a lot of risk with real-time."
"I would love to see Turbonomic analyze backup data. We have had people in the past put servers into daily full backups with seven-year retention and where the disk size is two terabytes. So, every single day, there is a two terabyte snapshot put into a Blob somewhere. I would love to see Turbonomic say, "Here are all your backups along with the age of them," to help us manage the savings by not having us spend so much on the storage in Azure. That would be huge."
"They could add a few more reports. They could also be a bit more granular. While they have reports, sometimes it is hard to figure out what you are looking for just by looking at the date."
"We find it very difficult to use these tools in a multi-cloud environment"
"Migration in RHEL and Linux environments can be improved. During RHEL migration with multiple data areas, you have to create a similar source environment at the destination. This can be challenging because you have to install it, create the VM, install over it, and mount it at the mount point. Only then can you do the migration."
"One drawback to using CloudEndure is that the default is to give one small, lightweight server, which is created in the cloud."
"If you're a super-small business, it may be a little bit pricey for you... But in large, enterprise companies where money is, maybe, less of an issue, Turbonomic is not that expensive. I can't imagine why any big company would not buy it, for what it does."
"It was an annual buy-in. You basically purchase it based on your host type stuff. The buy-in was about 20K, and the annual maintenance is about $3,000 a year."
"I'm not involved in any of the billing, but my understanding is that is fairly expensive."
"We see ROI in extended support agreements (ESA) for old software. Migration activities seem to be where Turbonomic has really benefited us the most. It's one click and done. We have new machines ready to go with Turbonomic, which are properly sized instead of somebody sitting there with a spreadsheet and guessing. So, my return on investment would certainly be on currency, from a software and hardware perspective."
"When we have expanded our licensing, it has always been easy to make an ROI-based decision. So, it's reasonably priced. We would like to have it cheaper, but we get more benefit from it than we pay for it. At the end of the day, that's all you can hope for."
"I know there have been some issues with the billing, when the numbers were first proposed, as to how much we would save. There was a huge miscommunication on our part. Turbonomic was led to believe that we could optimize our AWS footprint, because we didn't know we couldn't. So, we were promised savings of $750,000. Then, when we came to implement Turbonomic, the developers in AWS said, "Absolutely not. You're not putting that in our environment. We can't scale down anything because they coded it." Our AWS environment is a legacy environment. It has all these old applications, where all the developers who have made it are no longer with the company. Those applications generate a ton of money for us. So, if one breaks, we are really in trouble and they didn't want to have to deal with an environment that was changing and couldn't be supported. That number went from $750,000 to about $450,000. However, that wasn't Turbonomic's fault."
"It is an endpoint type license, which is fine. It is not overly expensive."
"The pricing and licensing are fair. We purchase based on benchmark pricing, which we have been able to get. There are no surprise charges nor hidden fees."
"The licensing costs are really high."
"In terms of pricing, I think it's an expensive tool."
Information Not Available
Use our free recommendation engine to learn which Cloud Migration solutions are best for your needs.
522,281 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Top Answer: The product is fairly priced right now. Given its capabilities, it is excellently priced. We think that the product will… more »
Top Answer: There is an opportunity for improvement with some of Turbonomic's permissions internally for role-based access control… more »
Top Answer: We primarily use it as a cost reduction tool regarding our cloud spend in Azure, as far as performance optimization or… more »
Top Answer: Carbonite Migrate works well in Windows platform migrations and in the case of a VML platform. The migration is smooth… more »
Top Answer: In terms of pricing, I think it's an expensive tool.
Top Answer: Migration in RHEL and Linux environments can be improved. During RHEL migration with multiple data areas, you have to… more »
Ask a question
Earn 20 points
Compared 48% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 9% of the time.
Compared 5% of the time.
Compared 27% of the time.
Compared 19% of the time.
Compared 18% of the time.
Compared 72% of the time.
Compared 10% of the time.
Compared 3% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
Compared 2% of the time.
VMTurbo Operations Manager
Turbonomic, an IBM Company, provides Application Resource Management (ARM) software used by customers to assure application performance* and governance by dynamically resourcing applications across hybrid and multicloud environments. Turbonomic Network Performance Management (NPM) provides modern monitoring and analytics solutions to help assure continuous network performance at scale across multivendor networks for enterprises, carriers and managed services providers.
For further information, please visit www.turbonomic.com
www.turbonomic.com/resources/case-studies
Carbonite Migrate allows you to easily migrate physical, virtual and cloud workloads to and from any environment with minimal risk and near-zero downtime. Options for finely tuned automation help orchestrate every stage of the process.
CloudEndure's Live Migration technology enables companies to reduce migration complexity and eliminate risk. It's automated migration solution utilizes block-level continuous replication, application stack orchestration, and automated machine conversion to ensure 100% data integrity. Whether you are migrating to, across, or within clouds, CloudEndure Live Migration gives you the flexibility and security enterprises need to succeed in today’s fast-paced digital ecosystem.
Learn more about Turbonomic
Learn more about Carbonite Migrate
Learn more about CloudEndure Live Migration
JPMorgan Chase, Bank of America, Citi, ANZ, Credit Suisse, State Street, Morningstar, VOYA, TPICAP, LPL Financial, Cisco, BMC, Hewlett Packard Enterprise, Agilysys, MetLife, Hiscox, Humana, Tokio Marine, Allscripts, SHARP, Providence St. Joseph Health, NBC Universal, pwc, KPMG, Wayfair, Carhartt, Tiffany & Co., UCLA, NASA, NIH
Computrade Malaysia
Agio, Cloud Nation, Limelight Networks
Healthcare Company14%
Financial Services Firm13%
Manufacturing Company12%
Energy/Utilities Company7%
Computer Software Company29%
Comms Service Provider24%
Financial Services Firm6%
Government4%
Computer Software Company31%
Comms Service Provider25%
Educational Organization8%
Energy/Utilities Company5%
Media Company30%
Computer Software Company28%
Comms Service Provider14%
Manufacturing Company4%
Small Business10%
Midsize Enterprise27%
Large Enterprise63%
Small Business20%
Midsize Enterprise52%
Large Enterprise28%
No Data Available
No Data Available
Find out what your peers are saying about NetApp, Turbonomic, Cisco and others in Cloud Migration. Updated: July 2021.
522,281 professionals have used our research since 2012.
Carbonite Migrate is ranked 11th in Cloud Migration with 2 reviews while CloudEndure Live Migration is ranked 6th in Cloud Migration with 1 review. Carbonite Migrate is rated 7.0, while CloudEndure Live Migration is rated 7.0. The top reviewer of Carbonite Migrate writes "Great tool for one-to-one migration, but not suitable for multi-cloud migration". On the other hand, the top reviewer of CloudEndure Live Migration writes "Easy to configure and use, but the vendor should offer an upfront choice of target server". Carbonite Migrate is most compared with Oracle Zero Downtime Migration, AWS Migration Hub and Velostrata, whereas CloudEndure Live Migration is most compared with AWS Server Migration Service, Velostrata, Vision Solutions Double-Take, Zerto and Racemi Cloud Path.
See our list of best Cloud Migration vendors.
We monitor all Cloud Migration reviews to prevent fraudulent reviews and keep review quality high. We do not post reviews by company employees or direct competitors. We validate each review for authenticity via cross-reference with LinkedIn, and personal follow-up with the reviewer when necessary.