none
DPM 2010: Can I move a member from one group to another, and preserve the backup RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have created additional Protection groups base on new rules, I like to move some members from their old groups into the new ones.

    I do not want to just delete them and add them into the new groups, it will take more than a week for the first replica to be re-created.  Since all backups were already done, I see that as a totally redundent and stupid thing to do.  But I can't find out how to move a member and preserve all backups that were already there?

     

    • Edited by achen2002 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 12:44 AM
    Monday, November 8, 2010 9:41 PM

Answers

  • Hello,

    I'm not sure what you mean by "I sill like to know if they would be migrated into the new identity of member automatically, after I add the same client back into a different group?"  I assume what you mean is would the replica's automatically move to the new PG or would you still have to create an initial replica.  They would not automatically moved.  

    You can create a manual one via this article: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff399552.aspx
    I personally have done this only from one Primary DPM server to a secondary DPM server to alleviate the massive data transfer across the wire.
    I have not tried this on the same DPM server but it should apply.  Since the first initial replica is local to the DPM server, you would not have to copy it across the network but rather from one local folder to another.

    So create the PG and elect to perform a manual replica. Follow the article above and then perform a consistency check once done. 

    Shane

    • Marked as answer by achen2002 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:58 PM
    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:06 AM
    Moderator
  • I think this all boils down to the recommendation that file server data sources with similar/same recovery goals should go in the same protection group and whether this is actually a good idea considering recovery goals may change after initial deployments.  If you do need to split a data source to a separate group it becomes a pain on the back-end side, plus the change may cause a lapse in protection or loss of RPs for EUR.

    Take an example where co-location of data on tape is enabled and you are backing up 6 file servers.  In the DPM storage pool, each data source will get its own replica and RP partitions no matter if all six were in the same PG or separate PG's.  You are doing D2D2T (disk to disk to tape) for all data sources and use the same short and long-term recovery goals.  Tape backup jobs are configured to run at the same time or within the window that would allow co-location.

    If you have a single PG for all the sources obviously all the jobs run as scheduled and as expected.  If you have six separate PGs, everything still works and data is co-located. Thanks to co-location, extra tapes are not used.  Assuming all the data fits on a single LTO5 tape, with co-location enabled you only use a single tape instead of six.

    Now, the recovery goals for one of the servers changes.  If you use a single PG, you need to remove the data source from the PG and create a new PG.  If you had six individual PG's, you just modify the recovery goals for the single PG. 

    Do I lose anything by using six separate PG's?  As far as I can tell the only difference is I may be slightly inconvenienced by having to create and track recovery goals and backup schedules for six different PG's.  But I'll gladly deal with that for the ability to easily change protection settings without having to delete data sources and create new groups.  Especially with EUR enabled and users relying on days or weeks of previous versions which may get wiped out if you have to move a data source to a new PG.

      

    • Marked as answer by achen2002 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:58 PM
    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:21 PM

All replies

  • Hello,

    You can remove the members and elect to retain the data. Once this is done the recovery points will still be there.

    http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff399517.aspx : "Click Retain Protected Data to retain the replica on disk with associated recovery points and tapes for the retention range. These can be deleted later."

     

    Thanks
    Shane

    • Marked as answer by ShaneB. _Moderator Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:12 PM
    • Unmarked as answer by achen2002 Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:50 PM
    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:12 PM
    Moderator
  • Shane,

    Thanks for the reply.  From your answer I learned that once I delete a member and select to retain the data, replica will be available for restoring tasks until I delete them, that's great.  However it only answers half of my questions.  I sill like to know if they would be migrated into the new identity of member automatically, after I add the same client back into a different group?

    Tuesday, November 9, 2010 11:45 PM
  • Hello,

    I'm not sure what you mean by "I sill like to know if they would be migrated into the new identity of member automatically, after I add the same client back into a different group?"  I assume what you mean is would the replica's automatically move to the new PG or would you still have to create an initial replica.  They would not automatically moved.  

    You can create a manual one via this article: http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/ff399552.aspx
    I personally have done this only from one Primary DPM server to a secondary DPM server to alleviate the massive data transfer across the wire.
    I have not tried this on the same DPM server but it should apply.  Since the first initial replica is local to the DPM server, you would not have to copy it across the network but rather from one local folder to another.

    So create the PG and elect to perform a manual replica. Follow the article above and then perform a consistency check once done. 

    Shane

    • Marked as answer by achen2002 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:58 PM
    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 3:06 AM
    Moderator
  • I think this all boils down to the recommendation that file server data sources with similar/same recovery goals should go in the same protection group and whether this is actually a good idea considering recovery goals may change after initial deployments.  If you do need to split a data source to a separate group it becomes a pain on the back-end side, plus the change may cause a lapse in protection or loss of RPs for EUR.

    Take an example where co-location of data on tape is enabled and you are backing up 6 file servers.  In the DPM storage pool, each data source will get its own replica and RP partitions no matter if all six were in the same PG or separate PG's.  You are doing D2D2T (disk to disk to tape) for all data sources and use the same short and long-term recovery goals.  Tape backup jobs are configured to run at the same time or within the window that would allow co-location.

    If you have a single PG for all the sources obviously all the jobs run as scheduled and as expected.  If you have six separate PGs, everything still works and data is co-located. Thanks to co-location, extra tapes are not used.  Assuming all the data fits on a single LTO5 tape, with co-location enabled you only use a single tape instead of six.

    Now, the recovery goals for one of the servers changes.  If you use a single PG, you need to remove the data source from the PG and create a new PG.  If you had six individual PG's, you just modify the recovery goals for the single PG. 

    Do I lose anything by using six separate PG's?  As far as I can tell the only difference is I may be slightly inconvenienced by having to create and track recovery goals and backup schedules for six different PG's.  But I'll gladly deal with that for the ability to easily change protection settings without having to delete data sources and create new groups.  Especially with EUR enabled and users relying on days or weeks of previous versions which may get wiped out if you have to move a data source to a new PG.

      

    • Marked as answer by achen2002 Wednesday, November 10, 2010 9:58 PM
    Wednesday, November 10, 2010 4:21 PM