Showing results for 
Search instead for 
Did you mean: 
The New Backup Exec 2012 User Experience

I have been part of the Backup Exec development team for over 15 years.  During that time, I have primarily focused on the user interface/user experience aspect and I have never been more excited about the product and its future. Over the coming months I intend to write about Backup Exec's product design and user experience and hopefully hear feedback from many of you.

Backup Exec 2012 was recently released, and long-time customers will notice dramatic change in the product's design. These changes run deeper than just the user interface. They represent changes in the direction of the product design itself. To understand why we changed the product, let's first take a look at where we've been. 

Backup Exec has a long successful history in the backup world. It started with NetWare and Windows NT and grew to become a dominant player in the backup space. Originally, backup was pretty simple. You installed a backup product on a computer, hooked up a tape drive to that computer and configured a backup. It was local and almost exclusive to tape or other removable storage. How times have changed! We now have multiple types of destination storage that have their own characteristics (disk, tape, cloud, deduplication storage, etc.). We also back up multiple systems over a network. And it's not just about files anymore: application servers such as SharePoint and Exchange are now at the center of what users protect. And let's not forget about trends in archiving, legal discovery, cloud, and virtualization. Throughout much of the evolution of backup though, Backup Exec's basic "use model" has remained largely the same. This was both an advantage and a disadvantage. It was an advantage to long-time customers who were already familiar with the product. But as the features, storage, and other capabilities multiplied, it became a disadvantage to newer users – and to some long-time customers – due to ever increasing complexity in the user experience.

While the user interface itself changed in appearance over the years, the basic underlying model did not. All of that has changed with Backup Exec 2012. This release has dramatically changed how the user interacts with the product. It also looks much more modern as you can see below.



As you can see, Backup Exec 2012 features a "resource-centric" model where you configure and monitor from the perspective of servers rather than backup jobs. The server view lists servers and distributed/multi-node applications, which improves the user experience. For example, since you select a server before configuring a backup, Backup Exec detects what data and applications are on the server and presents only choices that are valid for that data. This reduces the "noise" of irrelevant options from which to choose. The resource-centric design also provides a guided restore workflow so the user sees only relevant restore options.

Another significant change to the user experience is storage handling. As the product incorporated other types of storage in addition to tape, it did so in a way that all storage was treated the same. There were pros and cons to this approach. Existing customers didn't have to do anything differently or learn anything new to use different types of storage, but as disk and other forms of storage grew in popularity, the old concepts surrounding tape became limiting and irrelevant. In Backup Exec 2012, we differentiate how we treat types of storage, so that each type can be configured according to its own characteristics. For example, if you choose to target deduplication disk storage, the backup options automatically change to show relevant options like enabling client-side deduplication and appropriate retention options. You will not see media sets or media overwrite options since they do not apply to disk storage and are only relevant when backing up to tape. Again, our goal is to provide the customer with relevant options to select and to avoid flooding them with options that don't apply to what they are doing.

We wanted to take all of the great capabilities of the product and make them simpler and more usable to our customers. I hope we've achieved that and now have a stronger foundation to build on going forward.

To learn more about Backup Exec 2012 and how to use it, see the videos at They are short (5-10 minutes) and do a great job of explaining how to use the product.

If you'd like to post questions and comments, go to our forums at

If you have additional ideas for what you'd like to see in future releases, submit them at



The new interface looks great! I think this is a good direction.

I own a Backup 3600 Appliance with windows 2003 Storage server and Backup exec 2010 R3. This is the worst backup system I've ever had to deal with. And support to match. How Symantec can a release such a useless product like this is beyond belief.

"Backup Exec 2012 is all about our customers."

Really? Then why is the license portal so awful? It's absolutely terrible. Seriously. I'm not exaggerating. It's bad.

Really? Why wasn't I sent an upgrade notification?

Really? Why wasn't I sent any information on the fact that DLO is no longer a part of BE and must be downloaded (an impossibility!) separately?

Really? Why does customer service close at 5PM PST? I had a question about the license portal at 5:25PM but I guess I stopped being a customer at 5PM.

I worked out BE 2010 without the manual (Thanks god becuase the admin guide is useless) this one i CANT!

Did you REALLY think about user experience?  What was wrong with creating a selection list of servers, and then applying it to a backup job?  BE 2010 was actually pretty intuitive with no real experience i worked it out in about 5 minutes.  Its a few hours on now and I still have no idea whats going on in 2012. 

The biggest issue is WHY IS EVERYTHING ON THE NEXT SCREEN.  I want to know what tapes are free in an autoloader which has multiple partitions. I used to just click on the drive and it displayed them now i go into a new screen then back then forward then back then forward its a stupid design.

But i agree.  If you have ONE server with ONE tape drive using ONE tape its probably easy to use.

Having used the new product, I must say it has a terrible interface.  Imagine upgrading, and finding out that your 21 backup jobs converts into 160+ backup jobs.

Here is an example:  You have a two-node cluster which hosts 20 instances of SQL Server, and you have a job that does a full backup of all the databases on all 20 instances.  The job would go to instance 1, then instance 2, etc, all the way to instance 20.

Now, each instance get treated as a seperate job, and they will all START AT ONCE.  So, instead of having one job going to 20 instances in sequence, you now have 20 backup jobs trying to using the same resources.  (I don't allow 20 jobs to run at once on my Backup to disk folder, nor do I have 20 tape drives.)

Backup Exec 2010 R3 is easy to use and manager.  If there is an error, you simply click on the row with the red "X".  Then, you would read the error and be able to see what server or device caused the error.

Thank goodness that I backed up my catalog and database.  Re-installing 2010 R3 was a piece of cake.

Totally agree with you.

Never receive the upgrade notification

Licensing portal is a broken mess

Support portal is broken as well

The new interface is not usable, it seem to be design for a company with only 1 server. You go from a single job to manage to 1 per server which is totally crazy...

Bring policy back at least with that you have a way to manage multiple job in a simple manner.

Same for media set, why did you decide that disk based backup cannot use media set? Why don't you offer the option? Why i'm I force to use DLM on disk based, but allow for media set for removable device.

I will certainly keep 2010 R3, unless force to upgrade because of something like a new version of Exchange or SQL that 2010 R3 may not supported, until then, 2012 will stay on the shelf...

One of the worst interface ever in my opinion.

I have read a few criticisms from existing customers on our new user experience. I would like to take a moment to respond to those comments.

First let me say that during the development of Backup Exec 2012 we spent more time engaging customers, partners, SEs and other internal groups about the design than with any other release. The general feedback we've gotten both during development and after our beta, first availability and general availability has been, on balance, overwhelmingly positive.


Obviously, when so much change has taken place, there will be those who are unhappy with some of the changes. After all, the reason that many people chose to buy the existing product was because they were satisfied with it. It would be unrealistic to believe that you can take an existing product with a large number of customers and change it significantly without displeasing someone.


Concerning the specific design considerations: The move to a resource-centric model isn't very far "outside the box". Many products use a resource-centric model and almost all newer backup products do. We got feedback for years that our prior design was antiquated and overwhelming for any new user or someone that had more focused goals. The resource-centric model allowed us to simplify greatly the experience of configuring ever increasingly complex data protection schemes. It also helped us to become more "context aware" so that we can filter down options to those that are relevant. As we moved to a resource-centric model, we put in features to help mitigate the loss of multiple-server jobs. Among these are the ability to select multiple backups and to edit them all at once and the ability to create backups and to view backups across multiple servers at once.


We listen to feedback about the release and plan on using that feedback to add more features in the future to make the product easier to use. I invite everyone to provide constructive feedback that may help guide those future features.

Luckily I took snapshots before installing 2012 because 5 days later I'm back on 2010 R3. Moving forward I will be testing this product in my test environment before going live again.

I agree with change comes those who are unhappy but in this particular case people are unhappy because the product is a downgrade which encompasses more overhead for IT staff. Many people buy BE for its simplicity in managing jobs from a template/job option. To change the very core of BE which in my opinion was the template/job feature only leaves me to believe this an attempt to the separate the market, BE being for very small businesses and push Netbackup on larger infrastructures. There is no other explanation for producing a product which is simply unmanageable and inferior. I went from having a few job templates to now 30+ individual jobs (not including Vcenters) all running at the same time with no way of scheduling them other than staggering via schedules which is a ridiculous feat or creating a huge job window with some random priorities and hope my favorite servers run first and/or don’t miss.

I did like 2012's P2V option and ease of creating jobs and do think the server-centric is a nice side feature. However, to exclude the job/template feature is a mistake. I think 2012 has some benefits but with those benefits comes major drawbacks which over shadow any realistic reason to upgrade or purchase this software new. Also after I upgraded, all my incrementals worked and my full backup jobs randomly missed and then upon a manual full backup completion, all my job templates were lost and the console would crash. It did this on every occasion that I upgraded with no resolution from support.


first i was confused about the new gui.
I had a support call about some problems and was told NOT to fallback to 2010.


It would be much better to keep the old interface style, because it was fine and it worked !! BASTA

The new one has errors withing the

job management
jobs are disapearing
jobs are throwing many errors
jobs are not scheduled anymore

finaly the application give some error while administration and create a memory dump.

And the support doesn´t care about there "beta products" any more.

It´s sold and that´s it.

sad to see a previously fine product dying at it´s birth ..

Hope soon we will be migrating to BE12

I would strongly suggest that you dont make the move to 2012 from 2010 if your backup has even the basic level of complexity.  The average home backup product is alot cheaper and more feature complete.  Its probably faster as well.  I made a mistake trusting Symantec and REALLY REALLY wish i had stuck with CA Arcserve.  

BE 2012 is impresivly bad, its slow, tape management is impossible.  Jobs compete for the same space so back up in random orders.  there are alot of bugs. 

Being more positive it looks like an OK idea done badly.  Being able to cancel a single server is nice and it doesn ruin the whole backup.  Server based selection is better than the old symantec selection system, but IT NEEDED A SINGLE JOB TO TIE ALL SERVERS INTO A UNIFIED BACKUP. 

Hate to say it but I'm back to 2010R3 as well.  I don't mind learning new stuff but stupid and put it on one of my customers production servers before I had tested it in an environment as semi-complexed as theirs.  When I have time (HA!), I'll sit down and try to figure it out.  I assumed at least my existing jobs would continue to work after the upgrade while I learned the interface but none did.

I was laying in bed losing sleep over my most important client not having a good backup for three days so I'm up at this horrid hour doing the roll back.


For those frustrated, try CA's Brightstore software!

We have been Backup Exec customers now for two years and we'd never go back.


CA's database on SQL was over 4 GB

Backup Exec's is 4 MB.

Backups are reliable and easy to manage, thank you!


We are on day 5 of 2012 and loving it!

With 40 + servers and 3 backup jobs on different schedules to cover them i've now gone to managing around 100 jobs. Backups have been failing, the user interface is not intuitive, the licencing portal is a nightmare. I know some people don't like change but symantec have made this product unusable for me. Yes it looks pretty and there are some great new features but i can't run my backups with this product, i'll be doing the rollback like so many others and looking for an alternative product.


Edit: I'll be rolling back once i can reinstall 2010, 1 day on and i can't get the services to run now after removing 2012. My advice to anyone thinking of doing the upgrade, don't trust symantec and do this in a test environment so you can take a look at how bad this product is.

All NEW Symantec products are bad. SEP 12.5, BE2012 -- significat perfect changes, but it's only in Symantec's heads.

Now Symantec do products for small companies with 1-3 servers and 10 peoples ;(


Re-installing 2010 R3 was a piece of cake? Not for me, 3 days on and i'm still having problems, support are no use either, i was told by one technician that it would have to go to 3rd line to do an uninstall as they weren't allowed to do it. I've been left without a backup solution for a week now.

Sorry to hear that.  I was very fortunate that I was able to quickly move back.

Good luck downgrading.  I wonder if anyone from Symantec is actually reading this stuff?!?!?

The 4 GB SQL might not be a fair statement....

The Backup Exec SQL database is small because it catalogs the backups into separate files and NOT the SQL Database.  The SQL database is used for pretty much everything else, like device information, jobs, media info, etc. 

How big is your catalog after 2 years?  That depends on how much you are backing up, and how long you are keeping it for.

Symantec is trying to save money by using SQL Server Express, (which of course is free), but has a maximum storage limit.

It would be a cool thing to have all the cataloged info in a SQL database... imagine how much faster it would be to search for a single filename in a properly indexed SQL query, instead of rummaging through individual files!  (Not to mention have the ability to do your own queries to find things if needed.)

...but don't get me wrong, I really like BE2010 R3, and that is where I will be staying for now.

@GS1 - do you work for Symentac?

I think Mr. Dowers should work for @pple if he likes shiny and colourful interface, in order word 'beautiful' without user's consideration, oh hang on! @pple at least consider about users!

Your design interface is awful man!

"Backup Exec 2012 is all about our customers".

How is it even remotely fair to make this claim? This product is being roundly criticized by long-standing customers. The comments are overwhelmingly negative. It takes someone with a special disregard for the opinions of others to suggest that the feedback has been positive.

Come on Greg!  Even you have to see that this change was bad.  How would you like to get 8 times the amount of jobs to manage?

It is really bad when the solution to getting the jobs to run in sequence is to create a Powershell script.  Wow, moving from GUI to Powershell....  How much time do you think I have to do this?!?!?

We want the old interface back. It was working great, and all the jobs were running sequentially.

For the time being, could you PLEASE, (and I say this in desperation), make an update to Backup Exec 2010 so that it will back up SQL Server 2012 and the upcoming Windows Server version.  That would be a nice gesture for your dedicated customers who have been with you for the long haul; and then we can work out the issues with Backup Exec 2012 over the next year or two.



While I like most of the interface design changes in the 2012 version one thing I can't get past is how much slower the interface seems to run.  I was on a support call and asked about this and the support person said that must just be my underpowered server.  The server is a dual cpu Xeon E5320 (i.e. two quad core cpus). 

It seems fast enough as far as backing up data but navigating around the program is way slower than it should be. Sometimes changing the view between Backup and Restore and Storage takes several seconds to re-draw the screen.  That's just one example of lagging in the program, there are tons of others.


Only uses Backupexec who knows no other product. Try another and you understand what I'm saying.

spent the last week fighting this upgrade - it removed my user defined selections so now I can't back up my CIFS drives, the software agents "hate" my Lotus Notes servers - causing them to crash every time we run the software.   this was not very well thought out and has been horrible to work with.

Inutitive - my foot - this is terrible - give me the old screen to work with - maybe this layout would work for someone with no experiance with backup software or like someone said - 1 server 1 drive.  not a shop with 30 servers, sans and a VTL

well - I will again waste another day removing the software and going back to 2010 on Wednesday

It would be a cool thing to have all the cataloged info in a SQL database... imagine how much faster it would be to search for a single filename in a properly indexed SQL query, instead of rummaging through individual files! (Not to mention have the ability to do your own queries to find things if needed.)

Too right! A user was looking for a file that was created "sometime in May or Jun 2011". They knew exactly what the file was called (because they had an email referencing the name but not the attachment) so I thought "no problem, will simply search the catalog".

48 hours later it was still searching...


After reading all of the stories from those of you that did upgrade I am very glad that I found this forum. I now have a place to have my boss go so he can see why i am so hessitant to upgrade to the new version of Backup Exec.


Symantec is NOT listening to comments on this piece of garbage. I have been a system admin for 16 years and have been using Backup Exec since the Seagate days. It had matured into a very compact at-a-glance tool for us to keep vital systems backed up. This monstrosity - which appears to have been designed for a nursery school audience - is not to be trusted to back up a folder of recipes. Another thing- I am not going to spend all day switching from screen to screen because some 'designer' (but not a system admin) thought that it was more 'usable.' EVERYTHING YOU WANT TO DO IS SOMEWHERE ELSE.  ARE YOU LISTENING, SYMANTEC??

You can throw all kinds of corporate BS at this, however the real proof is the feedback from those in the trenches - not some suit standing at a whiteboard.

This needs to be rolled back and done over. Someone has to have the cojones to stand up and say: "We made a big mistake here."

I posted above but to continue on, I'm back to 2010R3 for all my clients.

I was a beta tester for the new version but unfortunately time didn't permit me to even look at it.  I don't know that even if I did, it would have made a difference but I feel bad about that.  At least I wouldn't have jumped into doing an upgrade that was a nightmare to roll back.  BE updates have always worked so well that I didn't see the need to test first.  Again, my bad.  

I'll still keep my customers on maintenance but it's 2012R3 unless Symantec does something about that disaster of a software or we'll be moving on.

Oh well...


The changes were so dramatic and mind-boggling that I was considering rolling back to 2010R3.  However, I decided to give it a week before I made any changes. 

The servers that are backed up by BE are mission critical so this gives me a little wiggle room to play around a bit with the backups and it wouldn't kill us if one of these servers didn't get backed up for a day or two.  All our mission critical servers are on Netapp.

I have to say that 2012 is starting to grow on me.  I'm really starting to like the new server-centric approach.  Yes, I had to re-create and redo every single job on all my servers.  But, for me, there seems to be a certain logic to the new design that I find most appealing.  The downsides?  The interface seems to run a lot slower.  Are other people experiencing the same problem?  After the upgrade, there were all these orphaned media sets that had no data associated with it and I just can't delete them because it says that there is data associated with it.

Now that I'm at the end of week 1, I've decided to stay with 2012.



I returned to using backup exec 2010 r3 6 months ago after 5 years not having to touch it. All my dreams came true, when all of a sudden I was thrust back into fixing the most ridiculous bugs with an array of patching, work arounds and hot fixes. Nothing had changed in 5 years :-(

After spending 6 weeks with tech support trying to solve a problem with GRT and virtual machine backups (among others), I was almost spent. I'm sure you should not be spending most of my working hours fixing backups. The technician gave me 2 options install an orphan hot fix/hack or upgrade to 2012. Upgrade to 2012? Surely not, could this be my answer.

No! I have far more problems now. Well I should have known, but when you are desperate things like this happen.

On a semi positive note I found the new UI and "backup paradigm" ok, it’s really just a face lift with some logic changes. At this point I don’t think it’s going to make any difference. If you are spending hours per day fixing issues, 10 seconds saved because of a new UI and “backup paradigm” doesn’t mean anything.  

I think the real problem is that a product can be released with so many issues. I know its complex developing software without bugs, but it can be done. I would like to see better testing before you release the product.

This is a change but with 20 servers and a library drive - I like it. Easy to track, quick to see status rather than skimming thru the list like the old version. Jobs are very easy to set up and I prefer to backup by server rather than across multiple servers in a single job so it fits the mindset already I guess. Had an issue with the licensing (HATE the web site) wher I got the maintenance license for my library but not the actual license for the second drive but my Dell rep cleared that up.

All our servers are virtualized however they weren't prior so we have them set to backup from within the OS. With this latest version, I have begun playing around with the VM backup and found it very easy to use and setup. Being able to backup at the vmdk level then restore at the file level is kind of awesome.speeds were faster too.

Overall, it's going along pretty smooth, even playing nice with Oracle. I agree with the commenter above that the interface seems to lag in response sometimes. I click on a server and it may take a moment for it to shift to the jobs. I found that clicking on the buttons at top right and left (which also moves you between the screens) is much more responsive. I wish there was a way to choose small icons in the menus and if there is, where the heck is it? I did hide it but the ribbon is still pretty big.

Multiple jobs are not running concurrently while taking backup by backup-to-disk option. While we schedule 4 backup on one device only one backup is running at a time and other is queued.

I have also done following setting in storge device detail

"concurrent write sessions :=10"

but got negative result.

Kindly help us.


After five upgrades that have fail and after trying to deal with bads wizards

I'm switching back to 2010R3 wich is more easier to use

Your product seems to be like "Microsoft SBS" with a lot of stupid assistants with a lot of bugs


When you have to save 20 server this "NEW RELEASE" run 20 jobs  nice...


Please to to use your software like an admin not like a children


Also stop this stupid licensing portal that is like the stupid M$ portal slow slow whith errors hangs and so on


A licence number will be mor easy to use

I like the new concept. 

No doubt it's different and it does have a few annoying bugs (can you say query failed) that it would be nice to have fixed soon.

I can see where It would be nice to have a way to group servers and then create a single job to backup that group of servers.  The previous way with policies and all worked but was confusing.  I understood it well but it was difficult to explain to someone not familar with it like someone backing you up during vacation.  I do think you could create a way to group servers and create a job for that group without changing the new direction.

It is a big change and took some effort after upgrading like dealing with the previous backup to disk folders.  I do like that there is now just a single backup to disk folder per drive which makes the configuration easier since I don't have to give much thought to this and can't create multiple folders on a drive and don't need to.

It's a BIG upgrade and change and anyone would be wise to read about it and watch the videos first and plan to have time afterwards to adjust the software and work through any issues.


Worst thing ever Symantec has done - BEWS 2012!


Guys.... I ve been using Netbackup / Backup Exec for the past 10 yrs now..... I wonder why Symantec changed BEWS 2012 GUI .... till 2010 there was no major change on the GUI features and followed same Veritas GUI concepts.... but this new version is a night mare even for a experienced admins.... Reason is quite simple : Symantec started to implement their own concept of user friendlyness which is not fare......

BackupExec is for SMB and it is optimal and ideal to have Job centric approach rather than having server centric GUI approach ..... I agree that this design will allow next generation Puredisk / dedup monitoring / troubleshooting simple, however Symantec should have considered maintaining same GUI concepts.....

What is the use of adding new CLI features on BackupExec when everything can be done in GUI prior 2012 versions


Symantec : Please have a clear plan on diffrentiating your NBU and BEWS product line... Lets not have this useless changes happening in NBU ...else EMC's AVAMAR / DD product line will take us for a ride.......

While I understand some of the changes made in BE2012, were the users complaining about BE2010R3?  Symantec claims to have interacted with a large user base that gave positive reviews of BE2012.  Where are those users?  Why are none of those users coming to the defense of Symantec?  I've read multiple blogs and forums and they are all significantly negative.  I've used Backup Exec since the late 90s.  This change is pretty brutal.  Initial testing showed that the new features were fun (if not very useful), but once real world scheduling was done for our 29 servers, it quickly became a nightmare, as it was necessary to create 29 seperate jobs at a minimum.  That is an administrative nightmare.  Yes, if I was doing disk to disk, I could see this being minor.  But as we use tape, this sucks beyond belief.  We eventually will be looking into disk to disk to tape, but that isn't until late this year, if not early next year.  While I understand that several manufacturers are big into pretty dashboards, I just don't see what was missing in the 2010 interface that administrators were demanding?  I'm glad that we tested it before implementing it into production.  I'm just so disappointed, as some of the new features are great.  Why can't developers and users ever be on the same page?  Ugh.

It's pretty much the same if doing disk to disk.  You still have to tell Backup Exec how to backup each server individually.

I do disk to disk to tape and disk to tape depending on the servers.  I can understand the hassle of having to individually tell the software how to backup each server, though once I had this done I've had no problems and I have multiple servers backing up to the same media including tape.  It's actually nice in that I can just focus on when I want to backup a server (day/time) and to what and let the software take care of it.  I don't have to order my servers other than maybe using different start times if I choose.  I think restores are more logical.  Right click a server and click restore.

For me, the previous version was complicated. I understood it fine, but I'm not the only one that uses it and it was confusing for infrequent system admins that might have to perform a restore.

It definately has room for improvement.  I'm hoping Symantec adds a way to group servers and configure all the backup jobs for them at once.

Yah.  It is the grouping that is an issue.  If we never had to adjust our backups, we would ultimately be able to setup the idividual jobs, setting all but one to appeand.  While dumb, it would likely work fine.  However, if we had to adjust our backup window due to maintenance or project (or similar), what a pita.  Go into my 30+ jobs and edit.  Dumb.  While I don't have to care much about the sequence of a data dump to a disk, to tape is a much different ball game.  It seems that BE2012 basically says KMA to tape users.  If anything, they should have provided a classic mode option, at least for this release.  I'm not going to leave Symantec over this, at this point, but if there are not changes, I'll suddenly be more open to other options for the first time since the 90s.  Just a terrible gamble made by Symantec with this release.  They're basically hoping that people have enough financial investment into their product to not change.  That is a slap in the face.  While 2010 isn't perfect, it is more accomodating than 2012.  Perhaps this product was released in honor of Rapture (end of the world)?  :-)

I have to agree with S.Ort - the previous version, compared to this one was a teeny bit more complicated.     I started out disliking the new version and was all set to roll back - but now it is growing on me.  I'm really starting to like the individual job for each server approach.   But then, I only have 13 server to backup so it is very manageable but I can see how it become quite painful if you had 40+ servers to work with.  I wonder if it is possible for Symantec to provide the user with both options: creating jobs for each server or group servers by jobs.  In the next release, perhaps?



same here, I disliked BES 2012 at first but it starts to grow on me. Things I like

- to restore SQL database, you just pick the date/time you want to restore to, BES will figue out and grab all the Full, Diff, Inc backup sets needed and then just restore it.

- deleteing backup sets on BTD or DeDup volumn will free up available space without having to delete the actucal files.

- Concourrent performance runs faster on a pretty new BES server Dell R710 Dual E5620 32GB RAM 4 Disk Raid 10 NAS.

- Hyper-V backup runs faster as well.


main issue I have so far is it no longer support backing up Continue Protection Server. Work-around



Thank you!  Finally, someone likes the new simplified restore functionality which we worked so hard for.  The new SQL restore was the most difficult application restore case which we spent so much time to design and implement.  Please see my "Simplified Restore Workflow" blog if you want to know more.

When I was designing the functionality which the backup data would be deleted while  deleting associated backup set, I was afraid that customers would not like it. Knowing someone appreciated my design and our work is a great reward for us. 

Forget about System Admins anymore. Here is your new BE user base:

Seriously considering switching back to 2010. Getting NO answers and slow support from Symantec about questions regarding GRT on VM's just not showing up.

we finally gave up on this piece of junk backup software.  I rolled back the server - not too bad but when I had to deploy the agents it was terrible - gotta give credit where it's due - symantec made it so when you give up on newer versions and roll back they may it the worst experiance possible - 35 VM's I had to go in and due registry clean-ups and and had about a 50% success in re-installing the orrect agents but when you do any updates on the server and have to push new agents out they fail all the time (communitactions errors)

This hs forced our hands - after 17 yers with a veritas backup solution we are going to be dropping it by th end of the year and going to something else - it was a good run, loved the product (in the past) but I guess when the "smart" people in charge take over the developement I guess this is what happens.   I would love to find out who they beta tested this with to find out if they even had more than one or two servers to backup

as far as phone support - that is a JOKE - average wait time of 45 minutes just to get a junior support person that just puts you back in the queue for another long wait

no more symantic products in this enviroment after this

Having used Backup Exec for many years I can say the new interface is terrible. Of course the UI people feel the need to re-do the interface because they need something to do and the Marketing & Product people want a "fresh" look. Do they realize not a single sysadmin bought a backup product BECAUSE of an interface? I guess every interface needs to be designed for six year olds now.  Smiley Sad


Yes, it is all nursery school now. Symantec has lost sight of the fact that BE is a UTILITY. We don't need to be entertained by it, we just want lots of at-a-glance information to do our jobs. But this is 2012 America, so everything now is for the children in mind.

Once the corporate geese start honking there is no turning back - they will never admit this is a disaster.