Subscribe
Accepted Solution

SC 3.4, SnapDrive Windows 6.3.1R1 and ProtectionManager (OC 5.0)

[ Edited ]

Hi SnapCreator Community!

I want to implement SC for a customer environment to centralize existing distributed SnapDrive scripts and also integrate with ProtectionManager (for a "QSM then VSM" policy).

In general it works, but I cannot make the PM-integration work when SnapDrive is involved (for filesystem-consistent snap to be QSM'ed).

When I try with a "naked" SC config (without SnapDrive being used for snap creation), it works:

...

########## Running NetApp Protection Manager Backup Version Create for dataset snapcreator_driveS ##########

[Mon Nov 28 13:15:59 2011] INFO: Registering snapshot scsnap-daily_20111128131557 with Protection Manager dataset snapcreator_driveS

[Mon Nov 28 13:15:59 2011] INFO: Snapshot scsnap-daily_20111128131557 for dataset snapcreator_driveS registered with Protection Manager successfully

...

When I then change the default settings in config file to:

SNAPDRIVE=Y

NTAP_SNAPSHOT_CREATE_CMD01="C:\Program Files\NetApp\SnapDrive\sdcli" snap create -s %SNAME-%SNAP_TIME -D S:

Now the snap is created by using SDW properly (correctly marked as "consistent" in SnapDrive, but registering the backup version in PM now fails:

########## Running NetApp Protection Manager Backup Version Create for dataset snapcreator_driveS ##########
[Mon Nov 28 13:17:17 2011] INFO: Registering snapshot scsnap-daily_20111128131713 with Protection Manager dataset snapcreator_driveS
[Mon Nov 28 13:17:17 2011] DEBUG: ZAPI REQUEST
<dp-backup-version-create>
<backup-description>NetApp Snap Creator Framework Backup</backup-description>
<dataset-name-or-id>snapcreator_driveS</dataset-name-or-id>
<retention-type>daily</retention-type>
<version-timestamp></version-timestamp>
<version-members>
  <version-member-info>
   <snapshot-name>scsnap-daily_20111128131713</snapshot-name>
   <snapshot-contents>
    <snapshot-member-info>
     <primary-name>filer9:/san/v_ex27_1_sctest</primary-name>
    </snapshot-member-info>
   </snapshot-contents>
   <volume-name>filer9:/san</volume-name>
  </version-member-info>
</version-members>
</dp-backup-version-create>

[Mon Nov 28 13:17:17 2011] DEBUG: ZAPI RESULT
<results reason="snapshot-unique-id must be specified in version-member-info." errno="13001" status="failed"></results>

[Mon Nov 28 13:17:17 2011] ERROR: [scf-00013] snapshot-unique-id must be specified in version-member-info. (code = 13001)

When I look at the debug output it is true, the "snapshot-unique-id" field is not passed by SC to PM when SnapDrive is used.

It is indeed properly passed when SnapDrive is not used.

I'm stuck :-(

Second thing is my customer requests "recent snap naming" for the primary snapshot (not for secondary copies, only on primary).

If the above problem can be fixed / worked around, would recent naming be a possible option, too?

Is there anyone who tried this before?

Thankful for any hints,

Cheers,

Mark

Re: SC 3.4, SnapDrive Windows 6.3.1R1 and ProtectionManager (OC 5.0)

Maybe interesting for others, I found the problem (meanwhile testing with SC version 3.5.0c). The snap naming format must not be customized when using SDW-based snapshots.

NOT working is:

NTAP_SNAPSHOT_CREATE_CMD01="C:\Program Files\NetApp\SnapDrive\sdcli" snap create -s %SNAME-%SNAP_TIME -D S:

NTAP_SNAPSHOT_CREATE_CMD01="C:\Program Files\NetApp\SnapDrive\sdcli" snap create -s %SNAME-%SNAP_TYPE_recent -D S:

Although the second example is in the SC IAG.pdf, it does not work with PM integration.

Working is (note the UNDERLINE before %SNAP_TIME!):

NTAP_SNAPSHOT_CREATE_CMD01="C:\Program Files\NetApp\SnapDrive\sdcli" snap create -s %SNAME-%SNAP_TYPE_%SNAP_TIME -D S:

Re: SC 3.4, SnapDrive Windows 6.3.1R1 and ProtectionManager (OC 5.0)

Yep we changed the naming convention for timestamp style snapdrive snapshots in SC 3.4 to be identical to non.snapdrive timestamp snapshots to fix this very issue. Unfortunately some of the documentation is old so folks got confused but glad you found this in another thread!

I will make sure this is clearly documented in next release of admin guide

Regards,

Keith