Please share with the community what you think needs improvement with Quorum OnQ.
What are its weaknesses? What would you like to see changed in a future version?
I would like to see iSCSI support added so that NAS storage servers could be protected. We heavily utilize NAS storage and the risk there is minimal backup options. Currently, we are backing up NAS to NAS which is costly and slow. Being able to integrate NAS server backup would be the last item on my Quorum bucket list. I am excited to see enhanced support for Linux, which gives me an opportunity to let the Quorum start protecting my enterprise storage in our data centers. I would like to see this further developed as well.
It is not as feature-rich as a product like Veeam. Better integration with cloud-based solutions like Azure and Office 365 is needed. Because this product is somewhat new on the market, the vendor needs to do more marketing to raise awareness about it. There is a long-term retention capability but it is a separate license that is available at an additional cost.
There's not much room for improvement in onQ. The systems are pretty stable. Their support is top-notch. I like the fact that their support seems to be in North America solely, so there aren't any language issues. I really don't have any complaints. The one thing they could do is some tweaking on the web solution that's supposed to monitor everything from one page, rather than having to bring each server up on its own webpage. It doesn't always accurately show what the system's state is at the time, and we have to restart that process now and then. But it's not really affecting productivity. It just would make our monitoring slightly easier.
Upgrading the software on the appliance feels to me like it's going to be a little bit more work than I originally anticipated. The process for moving the VM off of the Quorum appliance and back into the production network again requires quite a number of steps. I don't know if there can be any improvement made on that, but in looking at it, I found it was pretty lengthy. There were quite a number of steps there so I requested that one of the Quorum engineers perform the process, which they were happy to do. That part was great. They were able to get that VM moved over from the appliance to my production network again and everything was fine.
At times the email notifications don't go out, but a quick reset always fixes that problem.
We have had one issue with backups for SQL servers. We found that some of the live SQL databases we were backing up would be inconsistent when we would restore them. We now have to consistently monitor the integrity of those databases.
I don't love the scheduler, as I think that interface could use an overhaul. I have always managed to get it to work the way I wanted it to, but it could be nicer and more user-friendly. Having to pick that a job repeats every 23:59 is a bit ridiculous in this day and age.
I would really like it if they followed comparable products from other vendors and had an option where you could offload to tape. I know it sounds incredibly antiquated, but the benefit I see is that there would be a better air gap than you have with backing up to an online source. For instance, if somebody were to get onto your network, whether it's this device or any other device, they could destroy your primary backup. And they could tell it to delete all those hosts off of the cloud, and it does so because, in the normal lifecycle of servers, you take servers on and offline all the time, so that functionality has to exist. That could leave you with a network with nothing, and no backups. But if you were taking your Quorum, or your other disaster recovery device, and dropping it to tape every week or every month for long-term retention, while the malicious actor could still do the exact same process, it would be pretty tough for them to destroy the tapes that are in a safe that have been in there every week for the entire year. That is one feature that I think would add a layer of security. It's a feature that other vendors have, and one which would help set an IT person's mind at ease knowing that, while it is an old technology, the benefit is there and the availability is there.
One thing that could be done to improve it would be a single pane of glass for doing disaster recovery testing, where I could have remote consoles in one place. They may be working towards this, and I haven't necessarily tested all of the features of version 5 yet. It is completely new to me. But as far as DR testing goes, I think I still have to go to each location in a browser and then bring up the console. I'd like to see them integrate that into a single pane of glass so I don't have to go to each server.