VM Licensing and Failover

Last post 02-20-2019, 10:52 AM by Boberic. 5 replies.
Sort Posts: Previous Next
  • VM Licensing and Failover
    Posted: 02-05-2019, 12:34 PM


    We presently have a protected virtual machine license for 930 VMs.  We are looking to implement a disaster recovery solution (Zerto) to protect approximately 66 of these VMs.  The Zerto failover solution will replicate these VMs to another datacenter / virtual infrastructure.  In the event of a failover, these VMs would become available / discoverable in the new virtual infrastructure, and then we'd expect to continue with the nightly VSA backups. (they'd automatically be discovered and backed up via a different VSA subclient at the other datacenter)  With regards to VM licensing, I'm assuming that initially we'd be double-hit on license usage as these VMs would pull an additional 66 licenses in addition to the 66 licenses already being consumed via the original VSA subclient.  In the order to avoid this double-hit on licensing, would we need to disable backup activity on the original VSA subclient and then run aging?  We're just trying to make sure that we understand the full impact of a failover with regards to VM licensing.  We also have 215TB of capacity licensing but I'm assuming that won't be an issue as the clients will still be accessible via their original client definitions in CV (FQDN) so any capacity usage via the SQL/FS agents would just continue as normal with no additional usage.   Thanks.


    - Bill

  • Re: VM Licensing and Failover
    Posted: 02-05-2019, 2:50 PM

    Any reason you are looking to go with Zerto over Commvault?  We are waiting for Live Sync I/O so we can replicate the VMs but protect them at the same time.  Zerto certainly has first mover advantage but I expect Commvault to do it better.  



    Not sure about replication using Zerto.  I do know that if I backup a VMDK with Commvault and restore it to a completely different site and backup the newly restored VM it will show the jobs under the same client so I would assume the same license.  That is also assuming that you are not backing up both VMs at the same time and a zerto replicated VM acts the same as a Commvault restored VMDK. 

    Also, I think you Zerto replicated VMs are going to be discoverable immediately after the first replication.  So there needs to be a manual process to say hey back these up now.

  • Re: VM Licensing and Failover
    Posted: 02-05-2019, 2:56 PM

    Zerto replicated VMs won't show up until we actually initiate a failover.  Once the failover is initiated, they will automatically be backed up via a different VSA subclient, hence I would expect to consume additional licenses. The original subclient would still be pointing to the the original virtual infrastructure which would be inaccessible in the event of a disaster.  Commvault would just see them as new VMs under a different subclient.  Am I misunderstanding something?



    - Bill

  • Re: VM Licensing and Failover
    Posted: 02-05-2019, 3:23 PM

    I am pretty sure you are going to see the Zerto replicated VM in the DR site in vSphere which I would expect Commvault to see as well.  Sure its not live until you actually failover but the VMs and resources are still going to be assigned at the remote site prior to failing over.  Perhaps I am completely wrong but pretty sure the VSAs are going to see the replicated VMs.

  • Re: VM Licensing and Failover
    Posted: 02-05-2019, 3:44 PM

    The VMs don't show up until they've been registered, which only occurs after initiating a failover to the DR site. (We've tested this)  Anyhow, that being said, I'm assuming that after the failover when the VMs get discovered by another VSA subclient, they're going to be backed up and thus consume additional licenses.  If I can't get confirmation on this, I may need to get a ticket opened up with Commvault.  Thanks.

  • Re: VM Licensing and Failover
    Posted: 02-20-2019, 10:52 AM

    My thought is you should try it with one small VM to see what happens.  CommVault uses the VM's GUID rather than name to identify VMs internally and distinguish them.  If it winds up with the same GUID in both places I suspect CommVault will figure out that it is the same VM. 

    Regarding licensing, I do hypervisor socket based licensing rather than VM based licensing so my situation isn't identical to yours, but I don't need to age off old backups to remove them from licensing count.  I merely have to disable new backups using the Activity Control tab and then run data aging. Even if data aging doesn't delete anything it updates license usage.




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.
Copyright © 2020 Commvault | All Rights Reserved. | Legal | Privacy Policy