storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.

Last post 02-26-2014, 4:54 PM by Ali. 12 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-24-2014, 11:34 AM

    Hi all; our comcell environment has grown out of controll and i want to change a few things but would value opinions from others. we have only one policy that covers All clients but the aux copies were set up for a retention period that is no longer feasible. basically All client data goes to disk first (kept for 30 days) and does not age off Mag libary untill at least one other auxcopy completes. the other aux copies go to tape and are held for 6 months and yet another aux copy goes to tape for 7 years.

     I want to change from All clients having their data saved for 6 months and  7 years to having a few of the most important clients retain for that timeframe,  and most others only retain for the original 30 days.

    opinion question is

    will it benecessary to add a completely new storage policy or can i simply edit the subsequent Aux copies to omit the clients that we feel don't need 6 months and 7 years retension.

    any thoughts about what doing that could cause complications down the road, or better ideas of how to do what i want.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-24-2014, 12:17 PM
    • Ali is not online. Last active: 07-03-2019, 12:32 PM Ali
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 08-05-2010

    Hi esorenson, thanks for the post.

    Yes, this is doable by simply unchecking the clients not needed for extended retention times from the Association tab, going forward the jobs which meet retention will age off, and no newer jobs will be picked (clients which were un-picked)

    Could you share a screenshot of how your Storage Policy view, want to just get an exact understanding of your setup.  If I'm getting you right, if you have a Synchronous aux copy on tape, and the Aux copy for the other copies are in going to the same library (yearly/monthly), you could simply change the source for the Aux copies to pick from the Synchronous copy, this will release the dependancy of the backups on the Primary (disk) copy to be retained until Aux copy completes, and the Aux copy will be a tape to tape job, rather than a disk to tape job, hope that makes sense.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-24-2014, 12:25 PM

    The only think you need to watch out for since your un-checking select all and picking only certain clients you need to make sure any new clients with the long retention get manually added.  I use to scheule a monthly reminder in my in-box just to double check.  

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-24-2014, 12:26 PM

    what you suggested about the source for other aux copies is how things had been before, but we had issues with tapes and tape drives, so when we could not get good copies the process faltered, which caused other isssues. but i would consider a combination of tactics to handle the load.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-24-2014, 12:29 PM

    duely noted shakenbake# ; i realize it would be a headache to set up at first, but keeping ALL data for 7 years is just no longer practicle. weekly we process over 20 TB's backup data  fulls. incrementals and aux copies all included. only have 28 TB mag library.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-24-2014, 12:34 PM

    ALi; one of the reasons we changed the source on some of the aux copies is our Library (Dell Ml6020) has only 4 tapes drives, so only one tape to tape copy could run at a time and i needed the other drives for disk to tape. recently to speed thigns up i aded multiplexing to the disk to tape caopies whicj helps keep the number of drives needed for each aux copy to a minumum.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 10:14 AM
    • Ali is not online. Last active: 07-03-2019, 12:32 PM Ali
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 08-05-2010

    Thanks, how many copies do you have, and are they selective/synchronous?

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 10:25 AM

    Thanks again for the reply Ali, i have four Aux copies, one is primary (spool) to begin off-loading mag library data to the first set of tapes. then i have two synchronous copies ; one has 5 day 1 cycle retention and the other has 5 day 0 cycle retension. then the biggie; a selective copy with 5 days 4 cycles and extended retension of 183 and 2555 days.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 10:47 AM
    • Ali is not online. Last active: 07-03-2019, 12:32 PM Ali
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 08-05-2010

    Thanks, breaking this down further, if you don't mind confirming.  4 aux copies in total, if so how come there are 2 additional Synch copies?  Also just to clarify, its just the Selective copy you're looking to lighten the load on correct?

    Primary to Disk

    Synchronous # 1 - Spool Copy

    Synchronous # 2 - 5 day 1 cycle

    Synchronous # 3 - 5 day 0 cycle

    Selective 5 days 4 cycles + Ext Retention for 183 monthly/weekly 2555 yearly

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 10:56 AM

    in the begining there may have been only one synch copy. a few months after the consultants set things up we realized none of the tapes were being aged and exported from the 48 slot library so i had to call them back and they "fixed" things, but yes the total amount of data that ends up reatined on the selective copy is the one i want to pare down to only the most important data. we are a university, so sarbanes-oxley or other compliance doesn't apply to us. my CIO just feels we only need to keep e-mail, maybe financial records and a few file share servers for that long, all web servers, and management servers we watch carefully and should only need to keep for 30 days.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 11:01 AM
    • Ali is not online. Last active: 07-03-2019, 12:32 PM Ali
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 08-05-2010

    Got it, so on the Selective, on the associations tab just uncheck the non-critical machines, over time this will age off the non-critical machines or you could alternatively prune the jobs manually and run Data Aging to reclaim tapes. 

    CRITICAL to note/put an SOP in play as mentioned earlier that if you add new clients to this storage policy going forward, and they are deemed critical, you must manually select the association for that client on the selective copy, as the auto-association will be disabled.

    Also if the Synch copies aren't necessary, disable/remove them as those will by default flag any/all jobs on the Primary copy to be copied and retain them on the Primary until they are aux copied, of course.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 12:38 PM

    Thanks again ALI; i realize it will be a headache to do all that editing, and in the future i will have to add a few steps when setting up new clients. also if i change some of the non essential backups to one full a week and no incrementals in between i will have a bunch of schedule policies to edit as well. thanks.

  • Re: storage policy change proposed, would like opinions from others.
    Posted: 02-26-2014, 4:54 PM
    • Ali is not online. Last active: 07-03-2019, 12:32 PM Ali
    • Top 10 Contributor
    • Joined on 08-05-2010
    If you are looking to not edit so many, then yes, better to migrate to a newer Storage Policy with new Copies and revise the policy retentions and reassociate clients, jobs on disk and synch tapes copies would eventually age off, and then you can remove then.
The content of the forums, threads and posts reflects the thoughts and opinions of each author, and does not represent the thoughts, opinions, plans or strategies of Commvault Systems, Inc. ("Commvault") and Commvault undertakes no obligation to update, correct or modify any statements made in this forum. Any and all third party links, statements, comments, or feedback posted to, or otherwise provided by this forum, thread or post are not affiliated with, nor endorsed by, Commvault.
Commvault, Commvault and logo, the “CV” logo, Commvault Systems, Solving Forward, SIM, Singular Information Management, Simpana, Commvault Galaxy, Unified Data Management, QiNetix, Quick Recovery, QR, CommNet, GridStor, Vault Tracker, InnerVault, QuickSnap, QSnap, Recovery Director, CommServe, CommCell, SnapProtect, ROMS, and CommValue, are trademarks or registered trademarks of Commvault Systems, Inc. All other third party brands, products, service names, trademarks, or registered service marks are the property of and used to identify the products or services of their respective owners. All specifications are subject to change without notice.
Close
Copyright © 2019 Commvault | All Rights Reserved. | Legal | Privacy Policy