IBM Cloud Object Storage vs Dell EMC Avamar

• IBM Cloud Object Storage is fast, secure, reliable and provides quick support when required.
• Step by step documentation is easy to understand and implement for new users across the organization.
• It is highly customizable and available based on the need of the use-case.

Read full review

• Avamar performs data deduplication on the remote host. This greatly reduces the amount of traffic that each backup requires. This even applies to the virtual environment through change block tracking. Backup times are reduced from hours to minutes.
• The management interface makes it easy to configure and maintain data retention periods. Many times certain data must be kept for an extended period of time. There is a specific menu for managing retention periods.
• The system is able to recover itself from a hard failure with virtually no loss of backups. There is a checkpoint taken each day that provides a recovery point in the event of a catastrophic failure. Since this is a node based system, the loss of more than one node could require a recovery be performed.
• While another grid must be purchased, the replication utility allows all backups to be replicated to another grid at a remote location. This ensures the resilience of the backups in the event there is the loss of the primary data center.
• Also works on HCI devices performing image-level backups as in our primary data center environment
• There is also now an All-in-One appliance for smaller locations

Read full review

• While this platform has been around, it does take some getting used. The interface could be refined. My Firefox Browser automatically closed when selecting some options and creating new objects as an example.
• The tutorials are a bit outdated in comparison to the screens shown. We understand the system is constantly improving. The tutorials should reflect the changes in the interface.
• There are many pre-trained models. However, it is not clear as to how those models were trained, what bias may exist in the training data, and how a user could improve those models unless we simply have to build our own.

Read full review

• The client interface has constant JAVA issues and can be slow and chunky. We have often had issues with current versions of JAVA breaking it so it will not even run.
• The backup clients are split out for function. Although this makes them light, it also makes it cumbersome to upgrade clients. The naming scheme can also be confusing for the clients.

Read full review

• Prior to cloud storage, we used on-premises storage devices to store and backup, and sometimes it was a headache to scale up or down the storage according to our needs. With the introduction of Cloud Object Storage, we don't have to worry about scaling.
• The uptime is also improved a lot after the introduction of Cloud Object Storage in our organization
• Obviously, it's a very cost-effective way to store and archive data.

Read full review

• Avamar served our organization very well for many years. It was absolutely the best solution of its day.
• We did the fork-lift upgrade twice to continue with Avamar. We could not continue to support this model of upgrades.
• Our final decision to replace Avamar was when the nodes filled with meta-data while we had plenty of data domain space for backups.
• We've spent too much engineer time babysitting the product.

Read full review