kewnev wrote:We have recently switched from BE2012 to Veeam 6.
The reasons we switched:
1. Unreliable backups for a Windows 2000R2 Hyper-V Cluster. We would change nothing, and BE would randomly fail. Tried all the fixes and patches, with only minor improvement. We had BE from 2010 onwards, and this behaviour never improved. They never really placed many resources into improving Hyper-V CSV backups, often giving customers the promise of "we haven't forgotten about Hyper-V customers, improvements around the corner" - these promises were lip service.
2. BE 2012 is buggy, and they didn't listen to their customers. Read this thread for hundreds of complaints from current customers: http://www.symantec.com/connect/forums/ ... pexec-2012
kewnev wrote:3. Very expensive. You need to purchase a separate agent license per SQL database/instance. Very greedy IMHO, why not make it one license per server?
kewnev wrote:As for Veeam..
- From day one of trialling it, it was been rock solid reliable without any failures. I can even perform a live migration of a VM while it is being backed up, and Veeam will keep working. BE would fail for us in this circumstance.
- It has a simple interface (yet has a lot of technology under the hood). BE is complex. They have tried to fix it with BE2012, but some of the most basic things are still hard to find.
- Licensing is very simple. Whereas BE licensing is complicated.
J1mbo wrote:I'd actually encourage Veeam not to put any kind of tape support in, since once that can has been opened very likely Veeam will gain something of the reputation for poor reliability that has plagued BackupExec and all the other tape backup product vendors. And besides it's totally legacy technology superseded by everything Veeam stands for - shown I think nicely by the tapes on display at Bletchley Park and any other computing museum. It's where they belong.
J1mbo wrote:I'd actually encourage Veeam not to put any kind of tape support in [...]
Instead, for me Veeam should be focusing on supporting encrypted replication of backups to any other removable media[....]
Gostev wrote:We've ran a big poll about this (disk or tape) among our customers 1 year ago - just blasted our whole email database. It appeared that as many as half of the sockets sold to date belong to customers who want us to support tape. So, we have no choice really but to deliver what they want. I am sure we can deliver tape in reliable manner, just like all other functionality we provide.
Gostev wrote:We've ran a big poll about this (disk or tape) among our customers 1 year ago...the tape fans..."lost" the poll.
J1mbo wrote:And how things have changed in a year
kewnev wrote:If you have invested in quality tape hardware, which isn't cheap, and you trust tape, then it is very hard to switch away from it.
J1mbo wrote:But that really just says it all - tape isn't even cheap. Seriously, this is dead-end technology.
Cokovic wrote:I must admit i can only agree with everything you've said. You'll get a like from me for that
Users browsing this forum: Google Feedfetcher, P_R_S and 8 guests