The main issue I've identified is that when backing up a final backup from the branch server, we don't have deduplication functionality. This becomes a significant concern when backing up over the WAN, as losing the base image and having to back it up again can incur a substantial overhead. The issue arises when the application and data set backup on the primary side are not immediately synchronized. This concern becomes more prominent when replicating from the primary to the disaster recovery site.

My customer was interested in ransomware protection. Currently, Dell offers the Cyber Vault solution, which is separate from Data Domain. 

Ideally, ransomware protection would be integrated directly within DD Boost, without requiring an additional out-of-the-box solution. This feature is currently available with HPE's Zerto and Huawei's Ocean Protect with third-party products like PradoNet. 

While Cyber Vault exists as a separate solution from Data Domain, having some standard protection for immutable backups into DD Boost would be a valuable addition and make it more competitive with other vendors.

My customers haven't experienced any specific issues related to DD Boost itself. However, their current Data Domain (DD6900) has capacity issues. This is their main concern now; they need to expand storage.

They're considering various options: a technology refresh, a complete solution swap (like HP StoreOnce), or another solution like Commvault, Huawei or OpenText. They're looking for options to minimize costs, simplify operations, and ensure everything runs smoothly. Their current concerns aren't related to backup or DD Boost performance. Their Data Domain is simply at 91% capacity with a six-day retention period.

So, due to the short retention period, they don't benefit much from data retention because the data isn't stored in the Data Domain long enough for DD Boost's deduplication to be fully effective.

While there is always room for improvement, I can't speak to the exact features that need to be changed. 

The solution could always be cheaper. 

The solution must provide better deduplication. We don't get much deduplication if the data volume is large and the retention period is less.

DD Boost could improve the solution by offering additional customizations that build upon existing features such as deduplication ratios. The primary objective of the solution is to create backups of existing data and push that data out to clients' backup systems. If they can make the process faster and introduce more enhancements, it would greatly benefit the backup environment.

The only issue that needs improvement in the solution stems from EMC DD Boost's cost of renewing support, which is quite expensive. Though the customer uses the product, they don't receive active support from DD Boost even though they pay for it.

The solution's technical support needs to improve the quality of their services.

When my company faced a problem with the product, it took some time to get proper support. From an improvement perspective, the support could be made faster.

DD Boost is a bit expensive.

It would be good if the product could be useful not just for general backup. I'm always using it for backup only. If I need any storage, I go for Dell EMC VMAX or Dell EMC VxRail, while for Dell EMC Data Domain Boost, the main purpose for me is for backup only.

The pricing for this solution is also expensive, so you have to look carefully at its pricing.

Dell EMC Data Domain Boost can also be a difficult application, particularly when you need to write a script for anything you would like to do.

We haven't had any issues. Our clients have been happy with the product overall. 

I'd like the be able to deploy the solution on SAN backups.

The experience of restoring VMware or Veeam Backup is difficult when the backup you are using is a  solution for backup, which is already having a deduplication. When you try to restore from Data Domain, it doesn't work perfectly, because Data Domain is already having a deduplication as well.

This is only a deduplication issue. If you are restoring databases with a normal backup, it will work very fast. However, if you are restoring your database at the deduplication by VM backup, then the deduplication for it will be very slow.

DD Boost needs to improve its interface. It should be easier to use. 

During my experience with Data Domain selling and basing on customers feedback, there is really no limitations regarding Data Domain Boost (DD Boost).

The solution could be faster. However, they already have acceptable speeds. The DD Boost is only a transport layer of the product. For example, we went on RFP, and the two main candidates were Veritas NetBackup and Dell DPS. We chose Dell DPS because of DD Boost. Veritas NetBackup also uses DD Boost, but Dell DPS is defaulted and integrated into the client. There are things other than DD Boost that can be improved. In the future, we will see more things that the product exhibits. I feel DD Boost will only improve in relation to Dell because it is integrated into the client and the software.

In the next release, it will be good to have a real-time view of the volume and for it to be shown as a metic. In addition, we are backing up many terabytes and sending gigabytes of unique data, so it will be good to have physical and logical data in DD Boost. Not having this makes it difficult to quantify the savings.

The deduplication is very bad on this solution. After 85% the utilization gets very bad.

The solution doesn't scale. If you hit your capacity, you need to buy a new device.

Technical support has fallen in quality. It used to be much better.

The management interfaces are quite good at the moment. The multi-tier functionality can be improved, but it is quite good. They could improve replication and perhaps support additional sharing network protocols. I would also like to see a better implementation of NFS Version 3, but it is already implemented and quite usable as it is.

An area for improvement is DD Boost's technical support.

There is nothing that's very difficult about this product right now. However, the GUI can use some improvement. When I compare Cohesity and Data Domain, I think Cohesity is more user friendly. In terms of Data Domain, the restored items should be converted from the Rockwell SQL end. That is the one thing which puts me off being a Data Domain administrator. I should have the authority to restore whatever comes to my end. I should get that capability as an admin. Being an admin, I need to be able to restore the things from my end rather than waiting.

Like any product, it would be good to improve performance and the ease of dealing with operating the system. It needs a more familiar interface to make it easier to use for everyone. Other than that, I don't think so that there are more features that will be necessary and important for every user. To me, all the features are suitable and convenient. If I was looking for something for Dell to add to the product, it would be notifications.

As far as improvement, the stability of the connection could be improved. The tool itself is okay, but not the gateway between the on-prem Data Domain and the cloud. We have to find a workaround or use third party products. So in the next release, I'd like to see a better connection gateway between cloud and on-prem.

Improvement of the pricing would be a welcome change.

The solution needs better performance and a more user-friendly operating system.

The solution needs a better gateway between the on-premises and cloud deployment models. We have to work around it or find a third party to assist. 

The pricing is high, compared to the competition.

There are some limitations where you cannot use it as a shared server or as a file server, it is limited for the only backup.

We have customers asking for a file server that can be used to share data with their employees, with an organization, or to use it on VMware as a storage unit, but this solution is not suitable.

When we receive requests like this from the customers we recommend building EMC Unity, it's a full package, you can backup, you can share and you can use it as a LAN in your virtualization environment.

The solution could improve by adding more flexibility for the customers here in Thailand. Some of the small capacity models of the solution are not needed by our customers. There should be a more flexible version of the solution.

In a feature release, there should be immutable features.

The solution needs to have a more transparent environment.

The solution needs to be more user-friendly for the end-users.

This solution should cover more platforms, and there should be more product coverage.

I think that the GUI should be improved because sometimes, not everything is properly displayed.

I would like to see better Fibre Channel support.

DDBoost is one of the most important features of the Data Domain appliance. The acronym stands for Data Domain Bandwidth Optimized OST, which gives the ability to distribute backup job tasks between DD and the host which writes to DD. This is called DSP - Distributed Segment Processing which is used during the backup process.

Another part of DDBoost, Clone Controlled Replication aka File Managed Replication, which is used on backup system site to easily replicate DDBoost created backup pieces of such. Lack of this functionality is, in my opinion, big limitation. When you consult interoperability matrices you will find (as an example of not full coverage)

1. No DDBoost support for Spectrum Space (former Tivoli Storage Manager) which claims market share higher than 15%

2. No support for Managed File Replication for Veeam Backup & Replication DD Boost over FC - which is one of the backup software leaders

The above are the most obvious examples on which I based my RFE to broaden the coverage.

FC improvements – I’d like to run DD replication over FC; if it would be possible then using DDBoost over FC and Replication over FC will remove the necessity for any data movement over IP. This solution would give us a clear separation between transport protocols used for management purposes (TCP) and those used for backup data transfer (FC).

My experience is that the fact that they give you certain toolsets based on certain modules only makes it difficult for us to save costs due to upgrading. So it would be nice if they could have the same toolset right from the smallest to the biggest modules, but being specific frame-dependent. The toolset itself does whatever I currently want.

This product is expensive compared to other storage so the price can be improved.

The restore and deduplication features are good, but they can be further improved.

The capacity of the solution is very low which is why we're moving to a different product. 

Integration could be better. Sometimes when integrating with different systems, it's not straightforward.

It should be expanded to include other databases and software. It should also be made easier to restore.