none
Secondary DPM Server not showing all servers protected on primary DPM RRS feed

  • Question

  • I have DPM 2010 (rtm) installed on 2 servers, primary and secondary. Primary protects multiple servers (19 at the moment), and secondary only the primary server.

    The problem is that secondary server only "sees" 3 of the 19 servers protected on the primary servers. These are the servers I initially tested the secondary protection with. Any new servers are not showing up on secondary DPM. Otherwise enumeration works fine (even the enumeration test script for dpm 2007 claims everything is ok).

    Even did reinstall of secondary dpm (deleting the sql database) but situation remains unchanged.

    All the 3 servers that show up are in the protection group with 18 of the other servers. 1 Server is in its own protection group but it is now showing up on secondary dpm either.

    Any advice?

    -Reima Perho

    • Moved by Praveen D [MSFT] Wednesday, October 20, 2010 5:32 AM Moving to DPM DR Protection (From:Data Protection Manager)
    Thursday, October 14, 2010 9:16 AM

Answers

  • Are 18 servers which are not seen are protected using untrusted/workgroup protection flow? Computers protected using the above flow are not supported for Disaster Protection scenario.
    Thanks, Praveen D [MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    • Marked as answer by Reima Perho Monday, October 25, 2010 12:36 PM
    Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:55 PM

All replies

  • Are 18 servers which are not seen are protected using untrusted/workgroup protection flow? Computers protected using the above flow are not supported for Disaster Protection scenario.
    Thanks, Praveen D [MSFT] This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    • Marked as answer by Reima Perho Monday, October 25, 2010 12:36 PM
    Tuesday, October 19, 2010 12:55 PM
  • Yes they are!


    I had no idea that DPM had such a limitation. I must say this is the biggest problem I have with DPM so far. Obviously there is a price to pay for not using one of the more expensive alternatives.

    This means that the "data -> primary dpm - > secondary dpm -> tape" type of backup is out of the question if there are any untrusted/workgroup computers being backed up. Also when using the "data->primary dpm->tape" only with untrusted computers I have to relocate tapes from computer room immediately.

    Thank you for the answer although I am most disappointed with the product now...

    -Reima

    Friday, October 22, 2010 7:52 AM
  • Yes they are!


    I had no idea that DPM had such a limitation. I must say this is the biggest problem I have with DPM so far. Obviously there is a price to pay for not using one of the more expensive alternatives.

    This means that the "data -> primary dpm - > secondary dpm -> tape" type of backup is out of the question if there are any untrusted/workgroup computers being backed up. Also when using the "data->primary dpm->tape" only with untrusted computers I have to relocate tapes from computer room immediately.

    Thank you for the answer although I am most disappointed with the product now...

    -Reima

    Agreed, After spending several days trying to find a working combination of hardware and software to get DPM 2010 to backup to an eSATA drive for Offsite, only to find performance was terrible (1TB took 1 Week to backup), I thought using a secondary DPM server for long term backup only might solve my problem.  So I spent more time setting up a secondary DPM server only to find out that you can't backup workgroup systems from the secondary server.  This is a huge problem that would prevent me from recommending that we purchase DPM 2010 and instead forces me to reconsider traditional tape backup software.

    It seems that DPM is not a solution for smaller companies that don't have the budget for fiber storage systems.

    Tuesday, December 21, 2010 10:03 PM