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.
I asked questions about a warm standby and multicast replication. We ended up using bi-directional replication and a warm standby db. Having 3 or more live OLTP DB's where each was read-write was going to be difficult to manage for contention if the same table was being updated. We stuck with an easier solution to have only two OLTP's, and then used additional DB's as read-only DW's.
SAP support has been outstanding. They have quick response times and always meet their SLAs. Any time we have an issue that needs to be researched they are able to get back to us quickly with resolution.
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.