<?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 Flex clone puts DEV server load on same data files as production? in Data Protection</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48858#M6784</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to understand the flex clone concept.&amp;nbsp; It seems to be a very attractive, and quick, way to get copies of a production database onto development sql servers.&amp;nbsp; Our development servers can generate quite a bit of IO as QA runs "production-like" queries, so I'm concerned that if the DEV databases are actually hitting the same data as production, we could have a problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:20:34 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>indianrock</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:20:34Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>Flex clone puts DEV server load on same data files as production?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48858#M6784</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;I'm trying to understand the flex clone concept.&amp;nbsp; It seems to be a very attractive, and quick, way to get copies of a production database onto development sql servers.&amp;nbsp; Our development servers can generate quite a bit of IO as QA runs "production-like" queries, so I'm concerned that if the DEV databases are actually hitting the same data as production, we could have a problem.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:20:34 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48858#M6784</guid>
      <dc:creator>indianrock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:20:34Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Flex clone puts DEV server load on same data files as production?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48862#M6785</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;That is a possibility, yes.&amp;nbsp; But... You could say the same about running high I/O dev/test on the same filers as production, whether they are clones or not.&amp;nbsp; Some things to consider:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;1. If you are running dev/test on the same aggregate as production, the disk load will be shared whether you have flexclones or not.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;2. All data on the controller uses the same NVRAM/CPU/ETC.&amp;nbsp; So, FlexClone or not, you are sharing resources anyway.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;3. If this is of concern, consider cloning from a snapmirror destination or a DataGuard copy (if using Oracle with DG) on a different filer.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;4. Use FlashCache - the shared blocks used in the clone are more likely to be in the cache (as you have multiple clients accessing the same blocks), and will reduce disk load.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Ultimately, it can be a trade-off between the benefits/savings from FlexClone and the cost of dedicated disks/filers/etc.&amp;nbsp; We are using clones of Oracle DB's on some Prod filers, and it was also a concern at the design stage.&amp;nbsp; We took a shot at it and it's working OK 1 year on.&amp;nbsp; Any critical DB's with high IO (such as data warehouse applications) are cloned at DR from the mirrors.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Craig&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 14:18:25 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48862#M6785</guid>
      <dc:creator>GARDINEC_EBRD</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-21T14:18:25Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: Flex clone puts DEV server load on same data files as production?</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48867#M6786</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Thanks Craig, that helps.&amp;nbsp; We're a sql server shop and currently the DEV sql boxes have their own local disks.&amp;nbsp; Since they are at our office where the DR/mirror filer will be, it sounds like cloning there would be best to eliminate traffic from our server facility to office.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; I also posted about the impact of regular database index maintenance on snaps, but haven't received a reply on that one yet.&amp;nbsp; At our headquarters I'm told the DBAs schedule maintenance as needed and the storage team "just has to deal with" any impacts that may have on snap/backups.&amp;nbsp;&amp;nbsp; In that office the DBAs apparently have nothing to do with snaps/backups/restores/DR.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The issue here is that our Systems guy ( part-time storage engineer ) doesn't know or want to know anything about database technology so I'm not sure how well he'll be able to handle Snap Manager for Sql Server ---&amp;nbsp; over the years, he and I have worked together, complementing eachother's skill sets.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Aug 2012 15:41:41 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Data-Protection/Flex-clone-puts-DEV-server-load-on-same-data-files-as-production/m-p/48867#M6786</guid>
      <dc:creator>indianrock</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-08-21T15:41:41Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

