Update on Unitrends

A higher up at Unitrends read my article on here about Veeam vs Unitrends, and a pretty high up at that company¬†gave me an email, asking how they could improve their product. I have to say that it was quite unexpected and sometimes I’m surprised at the readers that I get on here – I’m just some nerdy IT guy I guess, and I don’t know. I mean I realize it’s the internet, but I guess I’m not always aware of the readership I get. I just kind think this is more documenting my experience with products and stuff.UNI_Logo_RGB

Either way, I kind of told them a few of my gripes and he thanked me and let me know that some fixes were going to be in the works with them. A few of the things they highlighted to me were better error reporting in the “Failure” emails and better uniqueness criteria when scanning for VMs – this will help a LOT with cloning and replication because there won’t be the duplicate UUID error that we’ve seen in the past.

Overall, I am really appreciative of a company that is willing to listen to people – especially someone like me who works for a smaller company with a smaller environment. I work in the field and I understand that most issues are only issues when someone reports them, however, in the past when reporting issues, it seems like they just go in a queue somewhere and that’s that – you never really hear about it again or ever see anything happen with it. It’s nice to know that Unitrends listens to their customers and cares how their product performs, and even if I have had my troubles with it, it seems like they genuinely care about whether or not your system works for you and want to make improvements to it so that it works for everyone’s environment – even us with our smaller environment.

I’m not sure if I complained about this or not last time, but I had a small gripe about the CPU on our particular box being under constant load due to deduplication – at the time I thought this was a problem. I did a little power monitoring and found that the box is really only using about 320 watts (on average, as there was more CPU utilization during backup periods, which are the little spikes you see in the graph – obviously power usage went up slightly, and during the lower times it would drop) which in our environment is totally acceptable for more space. If this appliance were for something else, it might be an issue, but since it’s sole purpose is backing up and archiving data, that higher CPU utilization is not a problem to me.CPU

In the mean time, we have decided to extend our service agreement and get into a newer physical appliance as well, so we will see how that goes. I’m sure you’ll be hearing more about this in the future.