none
stop using secondary protection RRS feed

 > 

  • Question

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    we have three primary and three secondary dpm 2012sp1 servers.

    Im starting to think that the primary/secondary concept is a bit overkill in for us.

    If it's supported, and not too stupid, i'd like to stop protecting some servers on the primary retaining the short-term data, and then pick the protected member up on the secondary server to protect it directly instead of secondarly.

    1. stop all protection for the PS on the PrimaryDPM.

    2. Remove the attached agent on the primary with "Remove-ProductionServer.ps1"

    3. run setdpmserver -dpmservername <secondary>

    4. attach the PS to the secondary dpmserver

    5. Add the, say C-drive on the PS to a PG.

    With or without a retained diskdata on the secondary, I end up with this when the C-drive is added to a PG

    Affected area:	C:\
Occurred since:	2014-04-22 16:54:27
Description:	DPM could not start a recovery, consistency check, or initial replica creation job for Volume C:\ on primarydpmserver for following reason:
 (ID 3170)
	The operation failed for Volume C:\ on secondarydpm because the data source is not available. (ID 30169 Details: VssError:The specified object was not found.
 (0x80042308))
	More information
Recommended action:	To troubleshoot this issue, verify the following:
1) The data source is online.
2) The data source is not in a restoring state.
3) The application VSS writer is running.
4) The data source is accessible.
5) The data source is not missing.
6) If the data source is a member of a SharePoint farm, verify it still exists in the SharePoint farm configuration.
For more information on this error, go to http://go.microsoft.com/fwlink/?LinkId=132612.
	Run configure protection job again...
Resolution:	To dismiss the alert, click below
	Inactivate

    Is this even supported?

    if so, how can I get the secondary srever to 'forget' that it had previously protected a PS secondarly?


    Ivarson

    Wednesday, April 23, 2014 3:08 PM
    |

All replies

  • Question
    Sign in to vote
    0
    Sign in to vote

    Hi

    What you are attempting to do is not supported as per:  Unsupported Scenarios for DPM

    Moving protected servers with DPM secondary servers

    Moving protected servers between DPM servers that are under secondary protection isn’t supported. To illustrate this we have the following:

    • Server1
    • Server2
    • DPM1 acting as primary DPM server
    • DPM2 acting as another primary DPM server
    • DPM3 acting as secondary server for DPM1 and DPM2

    Where:

    • Server1 is protected by DPM1
    • Server2 is protected by DPM2
    • DPM3 is a secondary server for DPM1 and DPM2 (and thus protects Server1 and Server2.

    The following occurs:

    • Scenario 1              

      • DPM1 fails or is removed from the infrastructure.
      • You now want to protect Server1 with DPM2 (with DPM3 acting as the secondary server).
    • Scenario 2              

      • DPM1 fails or is removed from the infrastructure.
      • You now want to protect Server1 with DPM3.

    Both of these scenarios are unsupported. You can only select one of the following options:

    • Option 1—Use the “Switch Protection” option on DPM3 for Server1, and leave DPM3 in this mode going forward. Note that in this scenario you can’t add secondary protection for Server1 on another DPM server when you’re using switched protection mode.
    • Option 2—Rebuild DPM1 with the same name and restore the DPM database. This allows DPM to resume primary protection.
    • Option 3—Move protection for Server1 to a new DPM server (DPM4) that DPM3 doesn’t know about.

    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.

    Wednesday, April 30, 2014 9:16 PM
    |
    Moderator