Would it be possible: Filtered Associations for an Aux Copy

  • 18 October 2021
  • 6 replies
  • 20 views

Userlevel 3
Badge +8

Hi

It would be great if the following was possible:

  1. For  a Storage Policy Copy to be able to Filter the Subclient Associations for a Copy by filtering on a ‘name’ (or other parameter)
  2. It would allow for fewer storage policies to be created
  3. eg a single Storage Policy would allow
    1. a Primary
    2. a Secondary for example, for all the primary subclients
    3. but various other Secondary Copies could be created
      • (aa) Secondary_Copy_Send_to_Worm_Drive
      • (bb) Secondary_Copy_Send_to_Azure
      • (cc) Secondary_Copy_Send_to_AWS
    4. and ‘filter’ rules could be used (Even if it was only based on subclient names) as to which subclients can ‘use’ which Secondary Copies

 

(Yes - this is possible via qoperations, but very messy)


6 replies

Userlevel 7
Badge +23

@YYZ , that’s an interesting concept….so essentially you’d have an Aux Copy that only backups up subclients called “X” or whatever parameter you declare for any associations you’ve added.

Is that about right?  I am not aware of any GUI method to do this, though it makes an interesting CMR!

Let me know if I understand properly, and maybe give me a few more examples and I can submit the CMR for you.

Userlevel 3
Badge +8

Hi Mike

That's about right 

Assume all Subclients go to primary.

And  even - All subclients go to a second inhouse Datacentre across campus 

 

Then how do we ‘pick off’ which subclients go to the associated ‘off site’ targets - without creating ‘many’ separate Storage Policies

This way I could have Subclients called

SubC_30Days_to_Azure

SubC_30Days_to_AWS

SubC_30Days_Azure_AND_Tape

All I have to do is change the name of the subclients (assuming I was using the last part of the name as a filter)

 

The easiest example would be to assume I had 30 Days of Primary and 30 days of retention (for Synchronous to disk)

If I had 10 types of retention for Tape, I would need 10 separate Storage Policies

This way I would only need 1 (and it would be very easy to manage)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Userlevel 7
Badge +23

Cool concept!  Let me send this to our Aux Copy devs and see if they approve a CMR :nerd:

Userlevel 7
Badge +23

I heard back from dev on this and they advised that we kind of already have this feature:

https://documentation.commvault.com/11.25/expert/4895_creating_smart_server_group.html

I didn’t make the connection myself, though as they asked if this would work, the lights went off and i realized it would fit your need quite well!

Take a look and let me know what you think!

Badge

HI Mike

how does a smart group help with applying SP copies?  am I missing something?  I thought smart groups were more about applying network rules or having groups to automatically identify things, for example I have used smart groups to highlight servers that have missed backup for x days or group V9, V10, V11 clients etc

 

Karl

Userlevel 7
Badge +23

It was a bit tricky/clever, which is likely why it wasn’t so obvious.

What they suggested is creating Smart Groups that you assign to Storage Policies.

You can then uncheck/deselect any of those clients per Copy (if that is your use case) so they will all show up associated to the SP itself, and can be filtered at the Copy level.

Reply