Falconstor FDS vs. Quest QoreStor

The product can be run on-premises or in the cloud. It is a fantastic option to reduce the size and storage requirements of backup jobs. If your backup system can already produce a reliable reduction in storage up to 75% then I would say the QoreStor appliance would be irrelevant in your case. It does not perform backups itself. It is simply an extra step to reduce size, encrypt and offload backups to the cloud. this reduces the load on a backup system to handle other tasks while the QoreStor takes over.

Incentivized

• Deduplication
• Compression
• Cloud Connection
• Replication

Incentivized

• Disaster recovery from a populated cloud bucket needs improvement
• It would be nice to have some limited integration into the KACE SMA product
• The appliance is low resource use and virtual, but better access to system settings would be nice.

Incentivized

The support team is the main reason I am sticking to Quest/KACE products. They are stellar to work with and always responsive when I need help. The team listens to the user's recommendations for added features and tends to add the ones that really have merit. Support is everything when it comes to working with such a company

Incentivized

When I evaluated the Dell system it was an entirely new server on-site, with licensed levels of inlocking the storage it had on board. For a smaller organization, the Dell system was not cost-effective with a large upfront payment, and additional hardware to manage on-site. The QoreStor system was a virtual machine that could pop into my current system and just use allocated storage already in place. In addition, the upfront cost was dramatically less than the Dell option and no additional hardware

Incentivized

• Dramatically decreased cloud storage costs
• Backup Jobs take less time on the Backup system
• An additional level of backup and encryption

Incentivized