CloudFrame vs. Komprise

As any other archiving solution, it is very well suited for environments with a large footprint of unstructured data (CIFS / NFS shares for user data) with a large amount of unused/old files and a need to keep those unused files for long term. In our scenario, due to some legal and contractual constraints we need to keep these files for 15 years. Archiving is a good choice to move the unused files to a cheaper storage tier, both on-prem or cloud.

Incentivized

• It gives you a good overview on user data: files age, sizes, file types, owners, etc.
• It is very flexible on the archiving policies.
• The data scans are really fast without affecting storage's performance.
• It has a great alternative to STUB files, which they call 'bread crumbs' (symlinks to files).

Incentivized

• Its licensing plan, which takes into account the amount of data analyzed instead of data transferred.

Incentivized

We have used Veritas Enterprise Vault in the past, and besides its being a well-known player on the data archiving market, their tool is far more complex to implement, to manage and to keep working. Komprise is very robust and also very easy to implement, as most part of the job is done on Komprise side. The management console is delivered through a public URL as a SaaS platform. You only need to deploy a few VMs for scan/archiving/user access, which they call "Observer VMs." Komprise also doesn't uses Stub files, which is a poor implementation adopted by the competitor for file access. We had a lot of issues in the past with stub files. Komprise has implemented 'bread crumbs', which are CIFS symlinks to the files on the Observer. It is a very good implementation and it works really well.

Incentivized

• It allowed us to free up some space on our main storage during a time where we didn't have the budget to expand it.
• It allows us to move unused data to a cheaper storage tier (Azure Blobs).

Incentivized