Veeam Backup & Replication Reviews

I use the backup, replication, and the backup copy features. The most useful one is the backup feature.

I have a backup of my infrastructure every night, and have improved the speed of performing restores.

I think it is a good product but all products could be better.

I've used it for two years.

No issues with deployment, nothing went wrong.

This product has saved a lot of my time, as it’s very stable.

I have only needed to open two tickets in two years.

I have only needed to open two tickets in two years.

Yes, I previously used Microsoft System Center but Veeam is better, faster and easy to use and configure.

It's easy and very straightforward to configure.

It was implemented in-house.

I would recommend you buy this product because it is simple to use and works fine.

The ability to perform exchange restores.

Surebackup allows verification of the backup. This provides a higher level of confidence.

I've used it for two years.

No issues encountered.

If there is a communication interruption (ping drops) between the proxy and the Veeam server, the backup fails.

No issues encountered.

It's excellent.

It's just below excellent.

We previously used Backup Exec and ArcServe. These companies are too big to care even for their own products.

It depends on the organizations structure and level of optimization.

It was an in-house implementation.

Just recently, I retired Backup Exec, and added Veeam v8. This increased the backup scope by 30% and reduced tape usage by 70%

No, but the pricing was key.

Try it. Spend maybe one hour a week on the phone with their engineer to tweak things before buying. The product practically sells itself.

- CBT (Change block tracking)

- Agent less

- Replication

- Dedupe

- Reducing backup storage

- Reducing backup time

Physical servers backup.

2 Years.

Yes, but solved in a few time by the support.

No issues with stability.

No issues with scalability.

10/10 - Very fast answer and follow up.

10/10.

Symantec Netbackup. We changed when we saw the promise of Veeam.

And these promises have been delivered!

Straightforward. More simple to administrate than a Netbackup or other one.

No, we implemented in house, with help of the support line.

Divide the cost of the backup by 2!

Actually, the cost is more than one hour of work per day (at maximum). I don't know the real cost of installation.

None, this is a competitive upgrade purposed by Veeam.

Simplicity!

The file level restore and the instant restore of a whole VM from a snapshot.

With this product we are able to drastically reduce our backup and restore times. We are able to have a true DR site with Veeams replication jobs.

It needs to be able to backup physical servers.

I have used this solution for 3 years.

No deployment issues.

No stability issues.

No issues with scalability, it is very easy to deploy an additional proxy server.

5/5.

5/5.

We previously used Backup exec and when we implemented virtualization, Veeam had a good price point and seemed logical.

The initial setup was pretty straightforward.

We implemented in-house.

We have saved a lot on not having to buy additional licenses.

I believe we initially spent 10k on implementation.

Veeam is definitely a must for virtualized environments.

2-in-1: backup and replication

Sandbox and Open FIles

Instant VM Recovery

I believe none.

For almost 3 Years.

No.

No.

No.

Good.

Good.

Was using Symantec.

No, very user friendly.

In-house.

we implemented as demo lab for ours partners to test.

Was an NFR.

No.

If they have any doubts, first try a POC... Will help to decide.

We currently use Veeam Backup & Replication in our own environment. Veeam is very useful  with the share analysis and with what I get from Reporter. It's very smooth to use. Even the restoration is amazing. The replication feature capabilities are very good. It's useful for Windows products; Exchange, Express, and the like. I'm not sure how they could compete with another product, but it's better. Currently, we are just using this solution on our own site, but not yet integrating for customers. We are integrators of Veeam. 

I really like the Sandbox feature, it's like a power tool for troubleshooting.

I'd like to see the pricing improved, it's currently an expensive solution. 

Veeam is very stable.

This is a very scalable solution. 

Technical support is very effective. They respond quickly, faster than Dell. 

The initial setup is very easy, it took us around 30 minutes and required one person for deployment.

The licensing of this product is expensive.

I would definitely recommend this product.

I rate this solution a nine out of 10. 

We use this solution to backup our files and virtual machines. 

We use this solution to backup information for our customers. We back up our customers' servers and store the information on local networks. This way, if something goes wrong, we can easily recover the information from our backups.

We have 40 machines that we backup with this solution.

Its backup capabilities in general are great.

My problem with backup software is the following: The main advantage that all of this software strives for is the ability to store data on a proprietary file system. When you look at the backup files stored in Veeam and other solutions, you cannot directly see the real files. Instead, you see a file structure where the backups are stored inside. This means if you lose the configuration of your backup machine, you only have files stored in a kind of file system that you just cannot get data from. I prefer backup solutions that allow me to regularly look at my backup files — to see the actual files.

I prefer a software backup solution that allows me to easily define my origin data, including data files, folders, and virtual machines. On the targets, they are stored exactly how they are. If it's a virtual machine file, I can find the virtual machine file stored somewhere. I cannot find my folders in a file structure that I don't understand what's in it. I understand why many backup solutions have this kind of file structure; however, this means I also have to have a full backup of the recovery system of my definition configurations.

I don't really like the proprietary file system or file structure, I always prefer the most simple functionalities where I can define this server, this file, these folders, backing up for this target, etc. I am not a fan of cloud storage for backups. Otherwise, I have to have another backup solution or my SAS backup cloud. In short, I am making backups of backups of backups. For me, that's a nightmare.

I have been using Veeam Backup & Replication for roughly two years.

Both the scalability and the stability of Veeam Backup & Replication are good.

Normally, I never need to contact technical support. I guess I would need to if I were using Azure cloud storage, but I don't use Azure for storing backups. As I said, I don't trust the cloud for backups.

We also use some other solutions, but they are open-source, not commercial solutions. We still use a lot of open-source backup solutions because they actually do what we need. They grab data from one place and they store it where we want without storing it in a special data structure. They store the files exactly as they came from the origin; they go to the target and that's it.

The initial setup is straightforward.

We don't pay for this solution, our customers do.

One thing that I enjoy with some open-source solutions is that they're normally the fastest to implement.

With open source solutions, if I have a server and I need to backup something into a folder, either an internet folder, a shared folder on the local network, or a local storage folder, I do not have to have these folders open on the origin system. I only open these folders at the time of transmitting the files, and then they are closed automatically. This means I do not have these folders open if I don't need them because it's safer that way to prevent ransomware attacks and so on.

As I said, don't trust the cloud. If you use the cloud, be sure to have a backup of the cloud. Testing is much more preferable on-premises. This on-premise location can be the local office of the company where you are doing it from, and also remote offices. Just don't use a cloud where you don't know where the server is. 

On-premises, when I say "cloud", I mean the internet. I can have an office in London, and if I want to back up on-premise, I do it on the local storage. I don't use general clouds like Azure. I have a server where I know where it is in some location and I remotely back up into that server. I don't buy storage on clouds. I'm really not a good customer for that. I don't trust them. They're excellent, they are really what people say are the future, but I have experienced too many disruptions on clouds. If I go into a software solution where I have to move the cloud, this obligates me to also have a solution to backup the cloud. I don't want to have these two solutions going from the office to the cloud and then also backing up the cloud — it's a nightmare.

Overall, on a scale from one to ten, I would give this solution a rating of eight.