Zerto Reviews

We use it for our conversion from Hyper-V to VMware. The DR purposes are being looked into as well.

We've got about 1500 to 2000 Hyper-V machines. These Hyper-V machines are used and converted to VMware, and these are the two environments that we work with now, both on-premises and in a hosted environment.

The ease of the conversion, moving from Hyper-V over to VMware, has been the most valuable feature. It's the primary reason why we chose Zerto.

We've seen a massive benefit from using Zerto in terms of time savings and consistency. You see a consistent outcome every time you do the conversions. We're moving from one platform to another, but the payloads in what we're moving are different. We see consistent delivery.

Time savings-wise, I see anywhere from 30 to 50 VMs be converted from Hyper-V to VMware on a nightly basis. We've seen some pretty good throughput on the nights that we do conversions.

Zerto has absolutely helped to reduce downtime. If we were to do this manually, the amount of time that we would have to shut down the VMs on Hyper-V to be able to do the conversions and move them over to VMware would be massive.

That amount of downtime would cost our company a lot. We've got a team of three or four guys that do the labor. If you take what they're getting paid and you compound the amount of time that it would take to do the conversion, there would be a drastic cost in labor for those conversions.

Right now, our production environment runs on-premises, and we have a DR copy of everything that we run in production. However, our development runs on that hardware. In the case of a DR event, we would need to shut down development and bring up our secondary copy of production. We're hoping that Zerto is going to be the tool to help us do that.

Zerto is primarily being used this year.

We're getting consistent results, so the product seems to be very stable.

From a DR perspective, we use multiple different facets. We have multi-site data centers in our environment, along with Cohesity. We use Cohesity from a backup and DR perspective.

I was not involved in the initial setup but have heard feedback that those involved loved the simplicity of it.

We've absolutely seen an ROI in terms of time savings with respect to downtime. When you convert a couple of thousand machines from one platform to another, the amount of downtime that it would take itself would have paid for Zerto many times over.

We get our money's worth with Zerto.

If you're in the middle of a conversion between different platforms, regardless of whether you're moving from on-premises to hosted or from one environment to another, it seems to be very agile and able to move your workloads into different environments pretty easily. I would give Zerto a rating of nine out of ten.

Zerto runs on a Windows Virtual Server and we have it installed at two sites. There is the production site, as well as the failover DR site.

We use this product almost exclusively for disaster recovery. It is responsible for the automated recovery of what we deem to be our mission-critical servers.

In terms of its ability to provide continuous data protection, this is a product that I trust. We test it quarterly to make sure that what the dashboard is telling us is correct. But, I've used it long enough to know that when I see the dashboard telling me that the virtual protection groups (VPGs) health are all green, then things are working correctly. Our average RPO is usually somewhere between three and 10 seconds.

We used to perform a disaster recovery test once a year, and it was painful because everything was manual. Now that we do it quarterly, we're able to provide management with reports of the tests, which not only makes management happy but also makes various governing bodies happy. We're a financial advisory firm, so it's the SEC that oversees us. That said, I'm sure this holds true in many industries. It allows you to have the reports to prove that you've done the tests. We don't have to ask them to take our word for it.

When we need to failback or move workloads, Zerto has absolutely decreased the time and number of people that are required to do so. For example, if I just want to test and prove that the network is up, it's something that I can do by myself. If I want to have people log in and test applications and stuff like that, I would need additional people. However, it has a built-in test function, so it will create a complete test network that you can run workloads on to show that the tests are successful. Afterward, you can delete the network and you're back just running, waiting for the next time you want to do that. In a situation like this, using Zerto saves eight hours or more and I can set it up and test it on my own unless I want people actually testing applications.

Thankfully, we have not had to use this product to recover from a ransomware attack or other disaster, but it would absolutely work in that case. By replicating the data, if ransomware were to hit the production side, it most likely would not also lock the disaster recovery side. This means that we would certainly be able to bring it up from there. Alternatively, it lets us pick points in time, so we can just go back to the moment in time before the ransomware happened. In a situation like this, I can't say that it would take fewer people but it would take fewer hours.

The most valuable feature is the automated failover, as it allows us to get the essential servers up at our DR site with little intervention.

Zerto is extremely easy to use. You set it and forget it.

It has a nice graphical interface.

The reporting could be improved in terms of the reports that you can show to auditors to prove that you have done the testing. I provide the reports that it generates now but, it would be great if, at the end of a DR test, it would generate a report of everything that Zerto did.

This would include details like what systems were up. Currently, that's not how the report reads. You would have to be an IT person to read the current reports that it produces. I would like for them to be the type of reports that I can put in front of an auditor or the president of our firm that would make sense to them, without me having to interpret and explain the results.

We are in our seventh year of using Zerto.

Stability-wise, this solution is rock-solid. If it fails, it's not going to be Zerto that fails. It's going to be either that your storage has failed or the bandwidth, or connectivity, is not there. I don't see a way where Zerto would be the culprit in a failure-type instance.

Our company is fairly small and the entire firm relies on it. That said, only one person actively uses it. We have three or four IT staff but Zerto has always been my responsibility.

In terms of scalability, I bet it would be no issue whatsoever. It's licensed according to the virtual machines that you want to protect. The only limitation of the scalability would be how deep your pockets are because it's going to be license costs.

We're a registered financial advisory firm, and we are growing. In the past year to 18 months, we have grown from approximately 52 employees to 70 employees. Everybody relies on it because if we have a disaster recovery type of situation, then everybody is going to expect to be able to work.

It is still a very small number of IT staff, so I can see that as we hire more IT staff to support a larger user base, we will certainly have more users.  At least, I hope not to be the only one responsible for this solution as we grow.

I would rate the technical support a ten out of ten.

Prior to Zerto, we used VMware Site Recovery Manager (SRM). We switched because it requires a lot of manual upkeep, and there is no automation involved unless you write the scripts. There are lots of freeware sites where you can download scripts, but aside from that, we were spending a lot of time manually writing scripts and maintaining everything. This was really counterproductive for the amount of time we had available in a day.

Essentially, SRM was replaced because of better interface automation and ease of use. 

The setup is very easily done because you tie it into your VMware vCenter. When you put in your credentials, it will recognize everything on your networks. It will recognize storage, whether it be cloud-based or as in our case, at another data center. Once you have those defined, it's just a matter of creating groups that you want to recover, server-wise.

The reason that you would want to do it in groups is that you can set it up in the automation such that it will bring up groups in a certain order. That way, you have a network where the domain controllers come up in the first group, and you can automate stuff from there.

Seven years ago, when I first started to use it, I found it more difficult. I wouldn't say that it was complex but they have certainly made improvements over the years. Where it stands now, if I had to set it up from scratch, I could probably do it in about an hour. Of course, that is because of the way I know the application but in terms of how they have changed the setup, it is certainly more user-friendly than it was compared to where it started.

I remember running into a couple of issues during the deployment, and I contacted their support. They were fantastic and helped me get through it. They made sure that all of my questions were answered, and that it was up and running how we intended it to be used. A lot of it probably had to do with me being a novice at that point, in terms of using the application.

It was a multi-site deployment, with a production site and a DR site, with dedicated storage for each. We have changed the storage that it uses over the years and if I had to do it again, I would use another vendor for storage. A lot of the issues that we ran into were related to the initial storage that we used, as opposed to Zerto issues, even though it was Zerto support that helped me fix them. 

Overall, the deployment was fairly easy. Not because everything went great, but because of the combination of the application being pretty well-written and the support. I would rate the deployment an eight out of ten.

I deployed Zerto with the help of a consultant, contacting support as we needed to. The consultant was NetGain Technologies and they're based out of Lexington, Kentucky. Their service was phenomenal and I would use them again in a heartbeat for this type of deployment. Ultimately, any issues that we ran into boiled down to some issues with the storage we chose to run it on.

I am responsible for the maintenance. 

We have absolutely seen a return on investment in terms of the manhours that have to be put into maintaining and testing this type of product. Thankfully, we have never had to use it in a true DR situation. However, I can guarantee that if something were to happen, even beyond the manhours and ease of automation, that it would pay for itself.

Our network infrastructure runs pretty smoothly most of the time. That said, Zerto has helped us to reduce downtime by approximately 20%. It is difficult to equate this with a monetary value because we have to consider what happens when a client misses a trade or cannot get a hold of their portfolio manager.

If it were an outage of a couple of hours then the person might pay a little more or a little less for a stock that they were trying to purchase. Overall, however, it is difficult to estimate. We aren't a day trading-type firm, so ultimately, I'm not sure that a short outage has any effect on our revenue stream whatsoever.

As a small company, we own the smallest license that Zerto offers, which is 15 VMs. I've not had to contact them or my reseller about purchasing additional licenses or to find out how much they cost.

We spoke with VMware to see what their pipeline was for upgrades or changes to Site Recovery Manager and we also looked at both Cohesity and Rubrik.

I like the separation of the software and the storage, whereas some of those other products are all-in-one. You're buying the software and storage together on the same platform. This means that the scalability would be different.

Sometimes, this is a case of adding shelves for storage. In that situation, for example, you have to start taking the data center rack space into account. Whereas with Zerto, it lets us build upon hardware we already had, even though we use dedicated storage.

Version 9 of this product is out. However, we have not yet upgraded. We're not leveraging the cloud the way a lot of companies do these days, and I know from the release notes that I've read that most of the new features are related to the cloud. There's not a lot of research and development being done on physical data centers anymore.

At this point, I'm very happy with where the product sits for my network. We are now just starting to move things to the cloud, which will take place over the next couple of years, so my assessment in this regard may change in perhaps a few years.

At the moment, we don't have plans to use it for long-term retention. We keep about three days' worth of data in Zerto and then it rolls off. We have other systems in place for long-term retention.

My advice for anybody who is looking into implementing Zerto is to do your homework. In the end, this product checks all of the boxes and it's the one that I would go with.

In the way that we use this solution, which I know is not how everybody uses it, we have storage that is specifically used for Zerto and two data centers. The way it works in that scenario, as long the bandwidth is there, meaning some sort of dedicated circuit between the two sites, it's flawless in my opinion.

The biggest lesson that I have learned from using Zerto is that disaster recovery doesn't have to be a giant pain. I certainly used to look at it that way in the past.

I would rate this solution a ten out of ten.

We primarily use Zerto for DR as a service but also for high availability purposes. It's mostly deployed at our on-prem colocation data center. We also do a little on the cloud, as well. 

Zerto makes DR a lot easier. We don't have to spin up copies of VMs or copy applications and databases. Zurto just takes care of all that for us. We just did our annual DR test, and it worked exactly how we expected it to. We're big fans. We like the fact that when you migrate DR, it will automatically be configured for us. For example, it sets the IP addresses because they have different IP ranges and various data centers.

It saves a lot of time during disaster recovery. In our tests, we just hit a button on Zerto, it did its thing, and the solution just let us know when it's done. In the meantime, we could go do other things instead of having to, copy app configs, .ini files, etc.

The near-synchronous replication is great. That's one of the reasons that we went with Zerto. I've had a great experience with it and never had an issue. Having this functionality is critical, especially for DR. If our main data center goes down, we need to flip it and have everything almost identical to what it was when the data center went down. We use it for production high availability, so if that host goes down, Zerto will just automatically forward to the replica that it has on another data store.

The post-configuration part could be improved. For example, it would be super helpful to have the ability to modify DNS. Once the migration is done, we want to do some more modifications to the endpoint.

We have used Zerto for around 10 years.

Zerto is highly stable. We've never had any issues or lost connections between the agents on the VMware host.

Zerto is scalable. We're running it in five different data centers worldwide, and we haven't had any performance issues. It covers 70 hosts across all our data centers.

I rate Zerto support nine out of 10. We haven't had to use support much because it just works. Once we had an issue with a VM that wouldn't upgrade, and they sorted it out for us pretty quickly. I've only used it once, but it wasn't a time-critical situation. If I contacted them during an actual disaster or DR test, then I could see how quickly they can work.

Positive

I've never used anything besides Zerto, but I've done the failover process manually. Zerto just makes it much easier and faster than a manual failover process.

In our DR testing, Zerto allows us to go work on other things while it takes care of everything. That's valuable because we know that we can still hit all of our SLAs in a real disaster. 

Zerto is reasonably priced for the product that you're getting. We keep on buying more licenses, so it's a good price. 

I rate Zerto 10 out of 10.

Our primary use cases include replication and disaster recovery. 

We use Zerto to help protect VMs in our environment. We are really happy with RPOs (Recovery Point Objectives).

Both the Recovery Point Objective (RPO) and Recovery Time Objective (RTO) are fine. They always meet our requirements. Their significance is not driven by a single factor but rather by the customers. Some customers require an RPO of a few hours, while others require up to 24 hours. It depends on the specific needs of the customer.

The most valuable feature for us and for my company is that we are replicating most of our production customers to the DR site, and we can do testing whenever we want. The customers are very happy with the way we do the testing while the primary is still running. There's no disturbance to the primary production site. 

The most important function right now is that we have another DR site, which is in a very old environment that is non-Zerto. We were log shipping there through another method. We are migrating over to the Zerto platform so we can replicate it to the new DR site so we can shut it down. That's going to be a lot of savings for us, shutting down the old replication with the other way. That will be one of the benefits too.

Zerto offers near-synchronous replication, which is always on and constantly replicates only the changed data to the recovery sites within seconds. It doesn't really bother us because we have enough bandwidth. Since we do a 24-hour recovery, it does not take a lot of disk space. It's an issue sometimes because I have to constantly increase the space on the disks at the DR site. On the VPG (Virtual Protection Groups), I have to constantly increase the space. That's where the alerts are being generated too.  

Someone suggested to me that I should turn off this feature, but that's not the way to do it. Turning it off temporarily is similar to applying a bandage.

Moreover, we have plans for DR recovery in the cloud. That's our next step, and it's likely to be on the agenda. We probably will use the license we have for that, which we can use as of today.

Zerto generates many false positive alerts, which is annoying. I still have thousands of alerts in my inbox, and those are false alerts. When I check there's actually no problem.

I have been using Zerto for four-plus years. 

It's very stable as far as we're running. Even though I'm running it on a very old Windows Server 2012 server, it's still running fine without any issues. 

Scalability-wise, it's pretty good, too, but we're not there yet. We are using it for small 50+ VMs we are protecting right now, but we are continuously growing. We may have to expand with multiple ZVMs (Virtual Managers). We're going to install multiple. We just have one on each side, which we don't have an issue with.

The customer service and support are really good. I wish they had phone support too right away, but we have to go through their website and open a ticket.

Moreover, there's always going to be something a person is not one hundred percent knowledgeable about. He has to escalate to the top tier. 

Positive

Somebody else did the deployment in the company and I took it over after that. I just recently upgraded to the latest version without any issues. Zerto is very easy to upgrade.

There is an area of improvement for Zerto folks. Every time we do an upgrade, if we are three or four releases behind, we have to go to the next level, then the next level, and then the latest. This is a pain. We would like the ability to skip to the newest version. 

ROI is pretty good compared to the recovery compared to the investment we have. The solution is worth it. If we go to the cloud, the ROI is definitely going to be much more.

The pricing is pretty decent. We got a good deal. 

I really like Zerto. I've been using it for many years. It's a quick recovery. I failed over the complete site to the DR many times and then failed back to the production without any issues. 

We have VMware SRM but we are not using it. We have a license, we can use it, but we're not using it because Zerto is our primary right now. 

Zerto is very easy to use. It's not dependent on the hardware. It can decouple from any hardware. You can use it, even if you have different hardware at the source and the destination. That was the biggest attraction when we got into Zerto. It's pretty decent. 

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten.

We use it for storage and replication. In our organization, our team is responsible for the disaster recovery process.

Before, we were able to test about 16 virtual machines in production. Now, we can do the same exercise with 180 virtual machines, in less time. And previously, we needed our whole team to execute the manual process with Hitachi. Now, we use half that number of personnel in this exercise.

The speed of recovery is definitely better with Zerto versus the previous mechanisms we had. It has helped to reduce downtime without a doubt. On two occasions when we used Zerto for recovery, we reduced the downtime by about 80 percent.

We had an issue with change configurations in a database and we couldn't roll back those changes. We used Zerto to recover the state of the virtual machines to 10 minutes before the changes.

It has also exceeded our expectations when it comes to RTO.

The replication and recovery features are the most valuable. We have been able to recover files with Zerto. First, we enable the virtual machines on the recovery site and then we navigate to find the file that we need. On two occasions, other departments in our organization reported issues with specific virtual machines. We used the checkpoint feature of the Zerto to enable the recovery of those machines to a point that was a few minutes prior to the problem.

It's an excellent tool for the replication of VMs.

We had some issues with replication, especially on Linux, but we have already resolved them.

I would like them to enable more backup configuration features. I'm not sure if Zerto can give us immutable files for ransomware protection. That could improve the backup.

I have been using Zerto for about two years.

The stability gets a high grade from me. I don't recall any issues.

Our principal site is located in one city and the recovery site is in another city. They are connected by an extended LAN.

In terms of scalability, it is good because, on the two occasions that we have done the upgrade process, they were "hot," meaning we didn't need to turn off our servers and that's very important for us. We always have our tools available.

We have opened cases on several occasions for update processes and for issues that we had at a moment when we were doing an exercise and replicating a VM to the recovery site. Their response was immediate and they were very efficient in coming up with resolutions.

Positive

We didn't have any previous backup solution.

The pricing is a little more expensive in comparison to other tools.

Knowing the backup options that Zerto has, we could be using it to back up our entire company's virtual machines, but we are just using its replication and backup for some virtual machines, but not all of them. That's because we are limited in terms of our license. We are only replicating about 30 percent of our virtual machines, those that have been identified as the most important for the organization.

We checked out Veritas Risk Advisor and Veeam.

It is meeting our RPO expectations and we are happy with the RPO.

We have approximately 1500 to 2000 Hyper-V machines. Those Hyper-V machines are being used and converted to VMware. We use Zerto for our conversion from Hyper-V to VMware. We are also considering using it for DR purposes. 

Our prod environment runs on-premises and we have a DR copy of everything that we run in production. Our development runs on machines and hardware. In the event of a DR event, we would shut down dev and bring up our secondary copy of production. We hope that Zerto is going to be the tool to help us do that.

Zerto offered us massive time saving and consistency. We have a consistent outcome every time we complete conversions. We move from one platform to another with different loads being moved each time and Zerto's results are consistent each time.

We convert 30 to 50 VMs from Hyper-V to VMware on a nightly basis which has resulted in saving time as this is good throughput. Zerto also helped to reduce downtime. If we were to do this manually, we would have a lot of downtime to shut down those VMs on Hyper-V to be able to do the conversions.

The ease of the conversion moving from Hyper-V over to VMware is the primary reason why we chose Zerto and is its most valuable feature.

There has been one pain point that we have run into. We wanted to shut down the dev environment to focus on the prod environment. We couldn't find any option in Zerto to do that.

We have been using this solution since the start of 2022. 

This is a stable solution that offers consistent results. 

From a DR perspective, we use a few solutions. We have multi-site data centers in our environment along with Cohesity. We use Cohesity from a backup and DR perspective.

If you're in the middle of conversion between different platforms, regardless of if you're moving from on-premises to host it or from one environment to another, Zerto is agile and able to move your workloads into different environments pretty easily.

I would rate this solution a nine out of ten. 

We use Zerto for disaster recovery (DR) purposes. We needed a tool to provide a quick resolution during a failure or problem and help us achieve our goals related to our service level agreement (SLA). We needed a tool that would help us in providing the availability of lost services within a specific time frame. We wanted to make sure that in case there is a problem and we have to execute the DR procedure, it is quick, easy, and safe. So, the main purpose for going for Zerto is related to meeting the required parameters for RPO and RTO.

We don't use Zerto for backup purposes. It is used only for virtual machines. We also have physical servers, but we have different tools for backup. 

Currently, we are using it for on-premise data centers, but we also do proof of concept tests with public clouds or hybrid clouds.

It is very good in terms of end-user experience and functionality. The graphical user interface (GUI) is quite simple, and it shows many values related to the status of replication. You can see the current status of a specific application and the health status of infrastructure on the GUI. You can very quickly navigate the application and find very useful information related to the health status of your infrastructure. You can see if the infrastructure is working fine and if there are any bottlenecks or problems that need to be verified by the IT infra department.

It helps us with standardization. It allows us to have a unified DR approach where with one tool, we can meet the DR requirements of different systems with different levels of DR criticality and classification. We have customers for whom the availability of a particular system is crucial for business, and this system requires a very high quality of replication. At the same time, they also have systems that are not as critical. For a unified approach to the DR process, it is better to use the same DR tool for all applications with different levels of criticality. Instead of using different tools for critical and non-critical applications, it is better to use one single tool and have a unified process. Zerto helps us with that.

Different types of integration allow you to provide the tool not only to specialist teams, such as infrastructure teams, but also to the end-users to perform activities like failover, system recovery, and system protection. Service portal integration and automation integration provide a big value in terms of DR activities. You don't have to wait for VMware specialists to perform the DR failover task. You can do it on your own if you have access to the DRaaS portal, for example. DRaaS portal is DR as a service that we have implemented in our own infrastructure, and it is a part of process improvement in our organization.

It has significantly decreased our RTO for failover to the full scope of an application. You can easily measure DR activities for a specific application. If you are responsible not only for your application as an application owner but also need to provide support to many customers at the same time, such a tool is very good. When you are responsible for delivering as per the SLA for RTO to many customers at the same time, it is very helpful because you can perform required activities automatically, and you can also perform them in parallel.

We are very satisfied with the achieved RTOs. We have specific requirements based on the service delivered values and SLA contracts, and by using the tool, we are able to fully meet RTOs for specific applications, a group of applications, or the whole scope of a data center.

During our DR exercises, we try to simulate the worst-case scenario where a complete data center is unreachable, and we are able to achieve the required RTO. Zerto is able to fully meet our needs, and we are able to achieve the required RTO during our normal and yearly DR exercise. We are receiving exactly what we were promised. However, I can't provide metrics or compare it to another tool because we have been using it from the beginning. I don't have the metrics for how much time it would take if we didn't have this tool, but the values that we are receiving during our annual DR exercise are fully satisfactory. So, it is fully sufficient for us.

The time saved in a data recovery situation depends on the specific scenario and the specific system that needs to be recovered. For example, if you have 50 gigabytes built into a machine that needs to be recovered, then with a traditional backup and restore solution, the recovery is very quick and easy. It would take from minutes to an hour depending upon your infrastructure or the bottleneck in your infrastructure. The problem occurs when you have very big systems with 10, 30, or 50 terabytes to be recovered. In such a case, it doesn't matter if it is ransomware or it is an infra failure. Even though the root cause is not the same, the outcome is the same. The fact is that you don't have a working system, and you need to recover the system. Recovering a big system with the traditional approach could take you a week, which is something that businesses do not accept. With a tool like Zerto, I can fail over the system very quickly. During DR exercises, I performed DR activities for systems with many terabytes of data, and it is not a problem to recover that system and failover. I have very good experience with that. During the training or presentation for my customers, I have shown how it works and what are its advantages. One of them is the possibility of a very quick recovery irrespective of the size of the system. The approach is exactly the same irrespective of whether it is an infra issue or a ransomware issue.

The main purpose of this tool is to allow failover between different data centers and different locations. When one site is unavailable, we can start the failover activity and perform the failover task. When a primary location is unavailable, or there is some hardware or logical issue at the primary location, it allows us to resolve the problem. We are able to start services at safe locations. We handle the disaster recovery process, and this is the main function for which we are using it all the time.

The second valuable feature is related to integration. If we want to implement any tool in our company, we want to make sure that it is not sandboxed. It shouldn't be completely isolated from other systems, and it should help other systems to receive feedback. To gain advantages of having tools like Zerto on the board, we want to combine our disaster recovery with other processes, such as incident management or change management. We can integrate these processes using different tools, but usually, the best approach is related to API. So, we can integrate different systems and combine them into a big IT platform, which allows us to achieve more features that are normally not available in the tool itself.

Zerto supports different ways to integrate with or get information from the systems. GUI is one of the options, and technologies like PowerShell cmdlets or RESTful APIs are also very good to exchange data for integration or automation purposes.

We also use Zerto for compliance purposes in case we need to provide evidence. When we perform DR exercises and we have some problems with the infrastructure, we need to prove that some actions were taken. It works very well when we perform DR activities and we want to show external auditors the proof and evidence of performed actions.

It is very quickly developed, and new features are provided quite often. I don't have any input for improvement or a critical feature request at this moment. If anything, a lower price is always better.

I have been using Zerto for six years. 

Its stability is very good. Of course, bugs can be found because this is live infrastructure, which is normal. There are new VMware releases, and there are new operating system releases. If there are some problems with applications, we raise cases, and we get the required support in resolving the issue. So, my experience has been very good.

Its scalability is very good. We can use it in on-prem and hybrid cloud environments. It works well with different vendors.

We are using it for different locations. We are using it for on-premise data centers, and we are also using it for all the production systems that we have. Any increase in its usage will depend on the decision of the company. If the decision is to change the platform and integrate with different vendors, we can choose additional features, but at the moment, we are using only the on-premises functionality.

Their support is very good. We have to meet our SLA, and the infrastructure is very sophisticated and demanding. We have had different cases that need investigation and resolution, and we could always count on Zerto's support, which is available 24/7. I don't have any complaints about their support. I would rate them a ten out of ten. If possible, I would even give them eleven.

Positive

I have not worked with any other tool previously. This is the only tool I have used. 

It was quite easy to implement and start the execution. There were no problems. It took us about three months to implement it in production.

For implementation, we were using the services directly from Zerto's support teams. In terms of the number of people, there were two people from the DR team and two from the infrastructure team, which included the networking and VMware teams.

In terms of maintenance, every tool requires maintenance, and when you upgrade, there are some bugs or issues that need to be resolved. Currently, for the maintenance of the application for many customers, one person is enough. Based on the number of protected systems and sophisticated infrastructure that we have, it works very well. It is not something that we should complain about.

Its price is reasonable. I have not worked with other tools, but as compared to its competitors such as VMware, its price is lower. So, in my opinion, its price is good.

Based on our experience and the implementations that we have done successfully, it is the right tool for protecting small environments and very big environments. It fits the needs of organizations that require a few functionalities, and it also fits the needs of organizations with a sophisticated environment comprising managed systems, multiple integrations, etc.

Zerto provides near-synchronous replication. So, the RTO is near zero. It is not equal to zero. From my perspective, there are some specific IT areas where synchronous replication is a must, but in most scenarios or use cases, synchronous replication is like a trap because you need to have a single connection between two replication zones or sites, which I would refer to as a single point of failure. If you have storage that is replicated between two sites, in certain scenarios, you won't be able to perform failover activities. If storage is broken on the primary location and you have enabled synchronous replication, the replicated data is also sent to the recovery site. So, you cannot perform failover activities because you now have corrupted data at both sites or data centers. We have chosen this tool to get out of this trap and be able to failover but not to the exact point in time when the issue occurred. I have experience working with such scenarios. For a specific group of systems that require synchronous replication, I can have an additional level of protection by having other DR tools, and at the same time, I can provide replication by using tools like Zerto. So, I can enable two DR solutions on one protected system and resolve the issues related to different scenarios.

In terms of reducing the DR tasks, because I have not used other tools, I can't provide the metrics for increase or decrease in time. However, considering that the tool is implemented for the whole scope of our application, we do not have to wait and spend weeks or months preparing for the DR test. We are prepared all the time for any issue. We also perform the unknown data center DR exercise allowing us to choose the test data center just before the DR exercise. I can very quickly start the recovery operations without a long preparation phase. This is one of the main features of a DR tool that should be taken into account for a company. You should have a tool that you can use at any time. You should ensure and be confident of the fact that it will work and not create any problems during the failover.

DR exercises generally should be performed by customers and application owners. That's because they know best what the issue is and how to provide a solution. It requires synchronization of some tasks and allowing more critical systems to be failed over before the less critical ones. To perform a global DR exercise preparation and execution, very less staff is required. Communicating with customers about the agenda and defining the scope, tasks, schedule, and other things take most of the time, but the execution phase is quick. It can be executed by one operator. It can be done by an infra specialist or an application owner, but ideally, it shouldn't be done by the specialist team. It should be done by application owners because they know the best about the issue.

I would rate Zerto a ten out of ten. It is a very good tool, and we have had very good experience with it. We have no problems with recommending it to others.

We've got two data centers, and for any of our applications that are not in some kind of a load-balanced or high-availability cluster, we use Zerto to replicate them, to make them as highly available as possible, without building that into the solution. We replicate between 100 and 150 different VMs from our North Carolina data center to our Chicago data center.

A small example of the way it's made things simpler is that we were building out a new product, and the original recommendation from the vendor when we were deploying that product was to have the application server closest to the end-users and the database server at our main data center in North Carolina. Once it was implemented, we found out that wasn't the case. We used Zerto to fail over the database to the same data center that the application server was in. We were able to do that really quickly and easily, without having to do a whole lot of extra work, such as having to rebuild the database server. That's one example of how we use Zerto, not just in a standard failover scenario. It made the process a lot easier than it would have been had we not had Zerto.

We have also used it when something happened to a configuration or a database file and it had become corrupted. It happened in the evening, after-hours. Rather than getting the backup engineer involved and trying to restore the files from a backup, we used Zerto to grab the file from a couple of hours previous, restored it, and got things back up and running really quickly. It's definitely a time-saver. We were able to handle it ourselves without needing to get anybody else involved.

One of the most valuable things about the solution is the ease of use when it comes to failing things over. The ability to easily test your failover capabilities is really nice. We can actually stand up a VM in an isolated environment, validate that the VM is up and running and that it boots properly, and we can do that in a matter of 30 seconds. Being able to show that to upper management, and that it's working the way it should, provides a lot of value.

It's one of the easiest products out there, as far as managing and using it go. The UI is pretty dead simple.

If everything is set up and configured properly, a failover of one or two systems can be done by one person. Nobody has to be involved other than the application owner, to validate everything, once the failover is done. It's a one-man show.

Continuous data protection is what it's supposed to do. Being able to bring a system up within a matter of minutes is the next best thing to having an actual high-availability cluster. If you're not building high availability into a solution itself, Zerto is the next best option. If we're talking about one or two applications or one VPG (Virtual Protected Group) a failover takes under five minutes, from the point of clicking "Start Failover" to the point of validating everything on the application end.

The only thing we've noticed that needs improvement is the backend cleanup within VMware. There are some little issues there. I would like to see tighter integration with VMware. From a recoverability standpoint, it's great when using VMware. But what we have noticed is that orphan data is an issue within VMware. It doesn't clean up properly when you're moving stuff around.

Our company has been using Zerto for several years. I took over management of it within the last six months, but I've dealt with Zerto in the past as well.

We've had no stability issues. We've had to open one or two cases on small issues, but they've been pretty trivial. There haven't been any critical issues with its stability.

It scales really well. Out of 500 VMs, we're using it for about 150 of them. That's probably not a lot compared to other Zerto customers. But as you add more ESX hosts to your environment, you just add new VRAs to the ESX host. There's not too much to have to worry about when you're scaling up.

We utilize it for everything that we don't build in a high-availability cluster. A lot of our stuff is designed as an HA cluster, but anything that is not designed that way is automatically protected by Zerto.

The technical support is as good as, if not better than, most of the technical support that we deal with. Opening tickets is easy. The support portal is easy to use. Depending on the severity—I've never had to open a Sev 1 case—Sev 2 and Sev 3 cases are answered within 24 hours.

Positive

We didn't have a previous solution.

I did not do the initial setup of the solution, but the upgrade from version 8.5 to 9.5 was very simple.

Our engineering team members, three systems engineers, are the main users of Zerto. We don't have segregated roles. I'm the point person for Zerto, and the other guys are backups for managing it and doing recoveries. Maintenance only requires one person.

We have seen ROI from a time-management standpoint.

I don't know if Zerto reduces the number of people that we need to have involved in a recovery scenario, but it definitely simplifies the process compared to using Commvault, which is our backup solution. If it's something that we need recovered from within a day or two, it's much simpler to recover that file with Zerto than it is from a backup solution like Commvault.

Anybody on our engineering team can probably recover a file using Zerto. I'm not so sure that's the case for Commvault. Our backup admin would probably have to get involved if we're doing a recovery from Commvault. Using Zerto, the UI is so much simpler.

There may be a small possibility that we will look at Zerto to replace Commvault whenever we do replace Commvault. That's a possibility, but it hasn't been brought up yet. We do know we are getting rid of Commvault at some point.

I've used other solutions, like Dell Avamar and Veeam. Veeam is definitely pretty easy to use and on par with Zerto. It's 100 times easier to use than Avamar. Ease of use is one of Zerto's strongest points.

Go for it. It's the best-of-breed for high-availability replication solutions. It really is dead simple to use and easy to implement and maintain. It's not one of those solutions that you have to spend hours a day managing. You look at it for five minutes a day and forget about it.

The biggest lesson I've learned from using Zerto is that high availability, having a good replication solution in place, doesn't have to be a big, complicated, scary mess. It can be simple. It doesn't have to be some huge hurdle that you have to overcome.