<?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 wfa vs oncommand unified manager 5.1 in Active IQ Unified Manager Discussions</title>
    <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62153#M12974</link>
    <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;hello folks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;OCUM 5.1 beta is out ( &lt;A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.netapp.com/docs/DOC-15731" title="https://communities.netapp.com/docs/DOC-15731" target="_blank"&gt;https://communities.netapp.com/docs/DOC-15731&lt;/A&gt; )&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;is anyone aware of compatibility status between this and WFA 1.1 ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;has it been tried? or should i go ahead &amp;amp; do it &amp;amp; report back ? &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="wink" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.netapp.com/5.0.1/images/emoticons/wink.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;p&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
    <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:27:50 GMT</pubDate>
    <dc:creator>pwl</dc:creator>
    <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:27:50Z</dc:date>
    <item>
      <title>wfa vs oncommand unified manager 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62153#M12974</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;hello folks&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;OCUM 5.1 beta is out ( &lt;A _jive_internal="true" href="https://community.netapp.com/docs/DOC-15731" title="https://communities.netapp.com/docs/DOC-15731" target="_blank"&gt;https://communities.netapp.com/docs/DOC-15731&lt;/A&gt; )&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;is anyone aware of compatibility status between this and WFA 1.1 ?&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;has it been tried? or should i go ahead &amp;amp; do it &amp;amp; report back ? &lt;SPAN __jive_emoticon_name="wink" __jive_macro_name="emoticon" class="jive_macro jive_emote" src="https://community.netapp.com/5.0.1/images/emoticons/wink.gif"&gt;&lt;/SPAN&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;p&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 05 Jun 2025 06:27:50 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62153#M12974</guid>
      <dc:creator>pwl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2025-06-05T06:27:50Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: wfa vs oncommand unified manager 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62158#M12977</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hi Peter,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;The quick answer is that OCUM 5.1 will work with WFA 1.1.&amp;nbsp; I've done it where OCUM 5.1 is on Linux....&amp;nbsp; You'll need to do the 'regular' oc5setup process as identified in the Installation and Setup document, but it does work.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;However, you won't automatically get anything new from OCUM 5.1.&amp;nbsp; The cm_storage schema in WFA is still aligned with what is available in OCUM 5.0.&amp;nbsp; If you are going to ask when will the new OCUM 5.1 tables be available in the certified WFA cm_storage schema?&amp;nbsp; Officially right now that is slated for WFA 2.0 (Q4CY2012), but we're hoping it can be available before then.&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Since OCUM 5.1 is c-mode only, even though both the cm_storage and storage schemas in WFA will "work", only the cm_storage schema will be populated with data since there will be no 7-mode data available in OCUM 5.1 for the storage schema&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Hope this helps,&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;Kevin&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Mon, 07 May 2012 12:07:33 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62158#M12977</guid>
      <dc:creator>hill</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-05-07T12:07:33Z</dc:date>
    </item>
    <item>
      <title>Re: wfa vs oncommand unified manager 5.1</title>
      <link>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62167#M12981</link>
      <description>&lt;HTML&gt;&lt;HEAD&gt;&lt;/HEAD&gt;&lt;BODY&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks kevin&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;unfortunately my email response got spat back but the communities server...&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;all i was after was confirmation that ocum 5.1 didn't require a different way of accessing to ocum 5.0 (eg, as happened with the change from 4.x to 5.0)&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;&lt;/P&gt;&lt;P&gt;thanks again&lt;/P&gt;&lt;/BODY&gt;&lt;/HTML&gt;</description>
      <pubDate>Thu, 17 May 2012 00:44:49 GMT</pubDate>
      <guid>https://community.netapp.com/t5/Active-IQ-Unified-Manager-Discussions/wfa-vs-oncommand-unified-manager-5-1/m-p/62167#M12981</guid>
      <dc:creator>pwl</dc:creator>
      <dc:date>2012-05-17T00:44:49Z</dc:date>
    </item>
  </channel>
</rss>

