I’ve used Veeam because it is better for virtualization and cloud data.

We have previously used Symantec, Veritas NetBackup, and Commvault. As per my evaluation, Commvault could be considered among the top-tier products globally, followed by NetBackup. The availability of skilled resources for configuration can significantly influence the choice of a backup solution. IBM Spectrum Protect can be ranked third.

We've chosen EMC NetWorker from Dell EMC for the next five years. Previously, we were based on IBM Spectrum Protect.

The hardware is installed, and now we're parameterizing and setting up the software. We expect it to be fully operational in the next couple of weeks.

It's ongoing due to the transition. We're migrating the previous dataset, among other tasks. We've relied heavily on IBM platforms, hardware, and operating systems, especially when our infrastructure was mostly mainframe-based. 

IBM Spectrum Protect was our platform of choice for the last five to seven years. However, we're now seeking a more contemporary solution with cloud support, which led to its replacement a few months ago.

We stepped away from IBM Spectrum Protect and have started using Veeam, primarily because of the higher license cost of IBM Spectrum Protect.

Before using IBM Spectrum Protect, we used Omniback from HP, and we switched to IBM Spectrum Protect because Omniback didn't keep up with the trend, was still working with OTA backup, and didn't support our backup needs, for example, versioning.

I previously used, NetApp Backup and Atempo Time Navigator but in the financial industry IBM Spectrum Protect is the most popular solution.

We have used Veritas NetBackup and HP Data Protector. We switched to IBM Spectrum Protect because we wanted a more stable solution, and our customers liked IBM Spectrum Protect.

I've occasionally utilized different products, such as the one formerly known as Tivoli Storage Manager. In smaller environments, I've worked with solutions like AXA for NETGEAR and some other alternatives. However, for enterprise-level environments, my primary choice has consistently been IBM Spectrum Protect.

In previous years we used Tivoli Storage Manager. The solution took up to three months to deploy. 

I have worked with Veeam Backup and Replication, Backup Exec, NetBackup, and Commvault. We switched because we are an IBM partner, and we preferred IBM technology.

In the past, I have extensively used Oracle's RMAN backups. I have also used snapshot and FlashCopy Manager a lot for critical systems.

In our own data centers, we had IBM Spectrum Protect, and then we migrated away from them. We are now only supporting those customers who are running this environment. If you look at some of the companies where we are supporting IBM Spectrum Protect, they have been an IBM shop for very long, mostly because their systems are on IBM. Most of their infrastructure is IBM and their software is IBM, so they will naturally go for IBM Spectrum Protect to protect their infrastructure.

The first criterion is the product. Second, customer service is one of the top of benefits to have, especially the technical support. They need to have knowledgeable people to talk to without having to always keep restating what your problem is. It gets kind of tedious and boring. Having that more streamlined and having more access to developers and the higher-level support when needed is my top requirement.

My company operates as a system integrator and deals with other products like Veeam, Commvault, and NetBackup.

We did not use a solution prior to this one.

We came from version 7.1.3. Based on some of the features which were offered in version 8, this was the focal point for us to say, "We need to upgrade if we want to take advantage of using container pools, start using deduplication, and no replication." 

We wanted to go ahead and start upgrading the Spectrum Protect servers to the latest code, as well as the Client, so we could take advantage of these new features.

ISP by now is our "previous" solution. We successfully switched to Commvault Backup.

I haven't previously used any other products. So, I didn't know that Veeam had AIX. A huge part of my problem is that my installation is based on AIX. It would be much easier if I had a Windows installation.

Twenty years ago, we had the file server, and we were using tapes. It was a local software. At one point, we switched to the Unix machine — the AIX machine — which could not support the same software. We had an IBM system, and IBM had a solution called ADSM, so we used that on the AIX machine. And since the product was good, we deployed it on Windows Server.

I have only been with IBM. I'm a consultant, so that's basically what I've worked on.

I also have experience with Dell EMC. I use them both.

We also use Veeam, which is mainly for the virtual environment. IBM Spectrum covers everything. It covers virtual and physical environments and heavy databases and applications such as SAP HANA. We are using Veeam only for a subset of our environment. 

We knew it was time for a new solution because we were using Backup Exec before and it was not meant to be an enterprise backup solution. We were looking for some kind of enterprise backup system, and we had too many backup solutions.

We had one for ERX, one for Linux, and one for NetWare. We used NetWare and Windows, so we had to consolidate all the backup solutions into one backup solution.

We found that TSM was the best, as we can back up any OS.

I have some experience with Veeam as well. I really like it compared to Veeam. You don't have to have media servers. It's nice compared to Veeam that ­clients don't have to do a media server.

We've had customers who have used other solutions, however, they've been weak and not as scalable as IBM.

I have used similar products by several different vendors and I feel that many of them are better than IBM Spectrum Protect. For example, Veeam is better because it provides better protection for a physical server. They offer both an on-premises and a virtual edition.

I've been using the same product for the last 15 years. I know it's been very reliable, so I've stayed with it.

I did not use a different solution prior to IBM Spectrum Protect. 

I have used other backup solutions, such as Veeam.

I've always used it. It started as ADSM and then became TSM and then Spectrum Protect. When we were TSM, we migrated from TSM to another product, but there were just a couple of systems that couldn't be migrated. For very large academic systems and number cruncher systems, we use MN backup. We have a very small footprint of Spectrum Protect left.

We previously used Dell EMC NetWorker and switched because:

• More storage was needed to manage data protection.
• It was more difficult to manage traffics, as it uses RPC, and more ports needed to be opened in the firewall.
• The solutions sometimes does not respond on "push/pull requests".

We have been using it for a long time. I don't know what we had before.

We were using TSM for about 30 years. We switched over to NetBackup for a while. We then switched back to TSM, primarily because NetBackup didn't support Linux on Z.

We also currently use Veeam.

I have been using this product since I joined my company.

We used NetBackup and eVault because of the stability, the possible evolutions, and the available capacities.

We needed a better enterprise backup because we were backing up OS-specific backup products with OS only. Thus, we had too many backup products for each OS separately. This was a nightmare to backup. Therefore, we decided to get an all-in-one backup.

We are using both Veeam and Spectrum Protect.

No, I have used TSM since I started managing backup/recovery.

Prior to 2006, I worked with the 7TECH backup system. However, I did not work on a large scale. We had it deployed on a single machine on a single server.

I was working with a IBM different product, DS4700. However, right now, we are in different stage of technology, which is SVC and Storwize V7000.

In some small clients, we worked with Veritas Backup Exec, but just for small environments as a low cost option.

Yes, it wasn't scalable enough, and client support was not as extensive.

No.

We're using Veeam for virtualization, as that aspect is not covered under IBM Spectrum Protect.

At the moment, we're happy with the features available. I can't recall feeling that there was something lacking. There aren't any new features we desperately need.

What we would like is integration between this solution and Spectrum Protect Plus. They should be one product and not two different solutions. 

I had different backup products. Each one is really good with similar backup needs, but with Spectrum Protect, I could get a holistic product for heterogeneity environments.

For medium/large environments (Unix, Linux, Windows, VMware) we also propose the Commvault solution. For fully virtual environments, such as VMware and Hyper-V, we always use Veeam Backup & Replication. For a small environment with Windows and VMware/Hyper-V, we usually implement Veritas Backup Exec.

We were not previously using a different solution. We were looking for a solution which was robust, and the company behind it was a good, big company. We had other IBM solutions at the time, so we wanted to make sure that we stuck with the same organization. I had used a Spectrum Protect, which used to be called TSM, in other places before, and it was stable and robust. That is how we decided to go with it.

I previously used CA Arcserve and Veritas NetBackup.

No, I did not. I have worked other places with other systems. They were all procedure oriented and still are, even though they might have improved since.

Commvault is very user-friendly. From one point you can do all of your restores. You can even restore a backup that was taken by a CMS. We were using Commvault previously.

We did not use a previous solution.

No other products used.

I don't see moving from TSM to Spectrum Protect as a solution swap, I see it as just re-branding.

Arcserve and Microsoft Backup.

We used NetWorker.

We also concurrently use Veeam and HP Data Protector.

If I compared it to, for example, Veeam, Veeam is more valuable for a cloud environment and it's not suitable for the physical environment. Spectrum Protect is a complex product and it's suitable for both the cloud and physical environments. Veeam, however, has a better user interface. There's no perfect product. Basically, some products have more advantages in one area and others in other areas.

TSM. I liked its command-line interface. But now Spectrum is even easier for my team.

We have used Backup Exec and Commvault in our environment in the past. Backup Exec did not scale well as the company grew. Commvault was not scaling as well and could not meet our archiving needs.

Yes, policy of growth and utilization of the structure.

In this case, we received recommendations, a short-list. IBM was on that list. We went with IBM because we have many IBM Power servers. There are some work loads for PowerVM and IBM knows the architecture of PowerVM better.

We were using Direct Attached DS8000 before and we switched for scalability.

No.

I have experience of many different solutions, and some of them do not exist anymore.

REELbackup was the best at it time, but was based on periodically full backups. The database was local on each server which has fantastic scalability. This product doesn't exist anymore, and would not be the best today because of periodically full backups, etc.

Networker is great with its many integrations to databases. But requires at the time when I used it periodically full backups. Newer version of the product has a way to overcome this, but requires more resources in the back-end. The database wiz in the system didn't respond sometimes which causes the backup to fail frequently. Networker seams also to not be a product that EMC and DELL see as strategic for the future.

Netbackup is great with its way to balance the data streams to get a good throughput, but requires periodically full backups at least when I used it. It has integrations to many databases.

IBM Spectrum Protect is the best of them. This solution is the best way to store backups with its space efficient data reduction technologies. In the past when tape was the main media for backup; it was very difficult to improve restore performance as the data was spread on many tapes, and collocation improves only a bit; but far from its competitors.

Today when most customers use disk or VTL this is no longer an issue. It is better than the competitors today, as only one restore is needed compared to if you have periodically full backups where you have to restore firstly it's full and all its incremental backups.

With help from partners ('LIGTAS') to IBM you can also have block level incremental forever for databases. Another great function is incremental restore which restores only the data that has been changed to the point in time selected. This also exists for databases with help from partners to IBM ('LIGTAS')

I wasn't involved in a previous solution at all.

I know Networker, Avamar, BackupExec but I like mostly TSM.