none
Secondary protection of deduplicated volume RRS feed

  • Question

  • We are protecting a deduplicated volume of a few terabytes to a primary DPM server, and then to a secondary one. I have noticed that the secondary DPM Server has allocated and used significantly more disk for the replica volume than has the primary. Why would this be? it almost looks like the secondary has protected the data in an unoptimised state (I have checked that the dedupe role is installed on the DPM servers).

    Thanks

    Mark

    Monday, August 4, 2014 12:51 PM

Answers

  • Hi,

    Unfortunately, secondary protection for Dedup volumes is not officially supported.  I don't necessarily agree with the wording - but this is the link to the documentation. 

    Unsupported scenarios in DPM

    Dedup file system can’t be protected to secondary DPM server

    Issue: After a dedup file system is protected by a primary DPM server, it can’t be protected to a secondary DPM server.

    Workaround: None.


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread. Regards, Mike J. [MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:54 AM
    Moderator

All replies

  • Hi,

    Unfortunately, secondary protection for Dedup volumes is not officially supported.  I don't necessarily agree with the wording - but this is the link to the documentation. 

    Unsupported scenarios in DPM

    Dedup file system can’t be protected to secondary DPM server

    Issue: After a dedup file system is protected by a primary DPM server, it can’t be protected to a secondary DPM server.

    Workaround: None.


    Please remember to click “Mark as Answer” on the post that helps you, and to click “Unmark as Answer” if a marked post does not actually answer your question. This can be beneficial to other community members reading the thread. Regards, Mike J. [MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014 1:54 AM
    Moderator
  • Thanks for that. Missed that in my research. It is rather unfortunate that we can't protect the workload to a secondary server and we'll have to think hard about how we protect the data adequately given this major limitation :-(.

    Thanks very much for your help.

    Regards

    Mark

    Tuesday, August 5, 2014 8:48 AM