<?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 IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster in ONTAP Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14182#M3281</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yeah, I won't bring anything new to the table, yet (funnily enough) both technology names are 100% spot on in this case &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="cool" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.netapp.com/4.5.5/images/emoticons/cool.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- MetroCluster = a cluster stretched over a metropolitan distance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- MetroMirror = mirroring (synchronous) over a metropolitan distance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;Radek&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:45:55 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2011-06-21T08:45:55Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14170#M3278</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Does any of you have any information on what the advantage of MetroCluster is over IBMs MetroMirror ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;As i can read the product only use FC, and they do not have Dedupe and the Snapshots are CoW.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But when a potential NetApp MetroCluster, that will only use FC, will this product do the same as we can do with MC ??&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 07:06:54 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14170#M3278</guid>
      <dc:creator>petter_glenstrup</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T07:06:54Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14174#M3279</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;V7000 MetroMirror is more analogous to SnapMirror. The value in MetroCluster is the automated failover and failback without anyone in the middle.&amp;nbsp; It's also deisgned to prevent the split-brain scenrios that come up when software is used to automate the automatic failover.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Fri, 17 Jun 2011 23:21:30 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14174#M3279</guid>
      <dc:creator>yarosh</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-17T23:21:30Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14179#M3280</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Can only support what has been said, MetroCluster is a pretty clever NetApp function, allowing for no single point of failure design, in a stretched data centre environment, allowing for the controllers to be separated over great distance and presenting a single storage controller.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;IBM don’t have this functionality yet within V7000, although V7000 is a nice solution especially its storage virtualisation capability, built on the IBM SVC unit, however in terms of a smart storage solution, it offers nowhere near the capability you will get with a NetApp filer as you have already mentioned, no dedupe, copy on write snapshots, however they will support 255 snapshots…but it does strike me as a classic example of wanting to be a NetApp solution.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;But quick answer to your question, if you want a metrocluster solution, then V7000 not the answer and…well metrocluster is! ☺&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 20 Jun 2011 18:06:32 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14179#M3280</guid>
      <dc:creator>paulstringfellow</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-20T18:06:32Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>IBM Storwize V7000 - MetroMirror vs. MetroCluster</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14182#M3281</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Yeah, I won't bring anything new to the table, yet (funnily enough) both technology names are 100% spot on in this case &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="cool" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.netapp.com/4.5.5/images/emoticons/cool.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;:&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- MetroCluster = a cluster stretched over a metropolitan distance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;- MetroMirror = mirroring (synchronous) over a metropolitan distance&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Regards,&lt;BR /&gt;Radek&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Tue, 21 Jun 2011 08:45:55 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/ONTAP-Discussions/IBM-Storwize-V7000-MetroMirror-vs-MetroCluster/m-p/14182#M3281</guid>
      <dc:creator>radek_kubka</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2011-06-21T08:45:55Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

