Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Altaro VM Backup.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
The application could include a feature to install a set size of data, such as the ability to store a single application with all its registry information for easy transfer. There are a couple of tools out there already that utilize this but having it all in one tool would make day-to-day IT work much faster and easier on techs. The software already does what is expected but having a couple of new tools wouldn't hurt the value of the software. There is not much to improve and my clients seem to like the fact that I am able to provide VM maintenance service quickly and efficiently.
To improve Altaro, I would like to see the ability to choose more than one backup location at a time. Make it possible to backup to a NAS, while at the same time or even a different scheduled time, back up to either a different NAS, or a cloud service, or a local drive. Right now you can add multiple backup locations, but you can only have the VM backup to just one of them. I would like to see this change to allow the VM to backup to all the locations either at the same time, or at different times.
For the time being, I don't see any improvements that they can incorporate. Microsoft is improving every generation with more hardware assistance from the processors which is good. At the University here we did a very detailed study and comparison of two other solutions and Altaro came out on top. Even better than VMware but perhaps a little less better than the Lennox solution when it comes to performance. The papers are publicly available concerning this comparison. We are quite happy with how it evolves with the next generation of machinery yes. There are other products of Microsoft you can use to monitor everything, the whole set, the management module. The pricing of that problem is quite high but okay. If you look into the performance of a virtual machine and you look to the performance of the physical machine, the correlation between these is totally unclear. The physical machine says I'm using ten percent of our processor power and as you go to the virtual machine it says I'm using fifty percent or sixty percent processor power. The correlation between the two is totally unclear. That's a technical issue, which I asked a student to dig into the details and figure out what the relation is. That's the only point I have for the time being.
I implement the solution based on VMware and Hyper-V. I think some of the features that either of these companies are providing should be better. As an example, the replication time between virtual machines is slow. It really depends on network latency. In addition to this, I think the GUI to manage the view of the control panel of the virtual machine is not very user-friendly. It could be improved as well. It would be very helpful if local technical support could be improved. Because of sanctions we do not have direct access to Microsoft support services. There should be another way to offer support services either within the country or other means. One last thing that would be helpful is to focus on the migration of the on-premises services to the cloud — something such as Azure, AWS. For this, it would be necessary for the manufacturer to provide a different user interface to be compatible with Amazon or Azure services.
The scalability of the solution is limited.
The Disaster and Recovery features, as well as the Cloning Technology, can be improved. I would like more cloud integration with disaster recovery.
It would be nice to see a feature that backs up the host so that, in case of a server failure, an entire server could be restored all at once.
Availability of physical server backup would be an added advantage. Migrating the physical through a backup and restore to a virtual environment would also be very helpful.
Missing features at the moment are Linux file-level restore, backup from physical machines, German localized version, and probably full tape support (RDX is supported but there is no "real tape" support).