<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#" xmlns:taxo="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/taxonomy/" version="2.0">
  <channel>
    <title>topic SVM-DR suggestions to Product Engineering in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SVM-DR-suggestions-to-Product-Engineering/m-p/446871#M13944</link>
    <description>&lt;P&gt;First I would like to say that SVM-DR is the greatest thing since slided bread. (Okay, sandwich bread).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I first read and implemented it, it made life so much easier, because, it automated the entire business continuance and backup and recovery process.&amp;nbsp; (Having to clone to a new RW volume wasn't as much trouble with FlexClones and I've been able to recover data for my users and admin groups perfectly).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now I've come to the Lifecycle end of the source SVM.&amp;nbsp; Wouldn't you know management wants to, a) end volume lifecycle in a staggered fashion, b) they want to maintain an archive in the destination for the volumes at end-of-life for a year or two.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the issue:&amp;nbsp; SVM-DR does not allow you to&amp;nbsp; take destination volumes out of the cycle.&amp;nbsp; With SVM-DR, it is all or nothing according to Support.&amp;nbsp; That is not very smart;&amp;nbsp; after committing to SVM-DR's promises we find that it is a bear.&amp;nbsp; Support suggests moving the source-volume to a new archival SVM and creating a new volume SnapMirror.&amp;nbsp; Kind of defeats the purpose of having a single point of Backup/DR-BC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now, I did find that you can get around that, but no thanks to NetApp.&amp;nbsp; It is a process I discovered after a few weeks of playing around.&amp;nbsp; But I think the Project Manager should be made aware that SVM-DR is positioned as a single point of DR, BC, SnapVault-Backup.&amp;nbsp; It should allow for movement of both source and destination volumes, even if that means converting from an SVM-DR to a Volume-SM policy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I hope this message reaches the proper ONTAP Protection Managers.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 09:46:05 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>Tas</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-04T09:46:05Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>SVM-DR suggestions to Product Engineering</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SVM-DR-suggestions-to-Product-Engineering/m-p/446871#M13944</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;First I would like to say that SVM-DR is the greatest thing since slided bread. (Okay, sandwich bread).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;When I first read and implemented it, it made life so much easier, because, it automated the entire business continuance and backup and recovery process.&amp;nbsp; (Having to clone to a new RW volume wasn't as much trouble with FlexClones and I've been able to recover data for my users and admin groups perfectly).&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now I've come to the Lifecycle end of the source SVM.&amp;nbsp; Wouldn't you know management wants to, a) end volume lifecycle in a staggered fashion, b) they want to maintain an archive in the destination for the volumes at end-of-life for a year or two.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Here is the issue:&amp;nbsp; SVM-DR does not allow you to&amp;nbsp; take destination volumes out of the cycle.&amp;nbsp; With SVM-DR, it is all or nothing according to Support.&amp;nbsp; That is not very smart;&amp;nbsp; after committing to SVM-DR's promises we find that it is a bear.&amp;nbsp; Support suggests moving the source-volume to a new archival SVM and creating a new volume SnapMirror.&amp;nbsp; Kind of defeats the purpose of having a single point of Backup/DR-BC.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Now, I did find that you can get around that, but no thanks to NetApp.&amp;nbsp; It is a process I discovered after a few weeks of playing around.&amp;nbsp; But I think the Project Manager should be made aware that SVM-DR is positioned as a single point of DR, BC, SnapVault-Backup.&amp;nbsp; It should allow for movement of both source and destination volumes, even if that means converting from an SVM-DR to a Volume-SM policy.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;I hope this message reaches the proper ONTAP Protection Managers.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Wed, 04 Jun 2025 09:46:05 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SVM-DR-suggestions-to-Product-Engineering/m-p/446871#M13944</guid>
      <dc:creator>Tas</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-04T09:46:05Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: SVM-DR suggestions to Product Engineering</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SVM-DR-suggestions-to-Product-Engineering/m-p/446890#M13945</link>
      <description>&lt;P&gt;I forwarded you request to the product manager for SVM DR.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&amp;nbsp;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;ak.&lt;/P&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 14 Aug 2023 16:35:21 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/SVM-DR-suggestions-to-Product-Engineering/m-p/446890#M13945</guid>
      <dc:creator>akiendl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2023-08-14T16:35:21Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

