Hi @Erase4ndReuseMedia ,

Can you check this Post:

Best Regards,

Sebastien

I don’t seem to be able to access that page.

Hi @Erase4ndReuseMedia there is an older discussion on this that may help 

Here is the documentation shared in the thread @Sebastien Merluzzi was going to share - it is in an employee forum so sorry about any confusion there. This documentation is more about how to convert, whereas the earlier one I shared with Michael Fasulo and others goes more to your question about why. 

https://documentation.commvault.com/2023e/essential/converting_commcell_console_storage_policies_to_command_center_server_plans_or_laptop_plans.html

Plans offer much simpler management of the storage, schedules, etc.

Thanks,
Scott
 

Simple management for simple environments, I guess.

What about large enterprise customers who need the granular control?

I work with some very large environments and, in my opinion, using Plans (and Command Center) definitely makes managing them at scale much easier.  Granular concerns are the exception, not the rule, and we typically have a solution through Plans (or Command Center) to address them.

Thanks,
Scott
 

I just fail to see how they are better in any meaningful way. Flexibility is critical in large enterprise environments.

@Scott Moseman - I would be interested in understanding how Plans assist your large customers manage scale.

In its simplest form, assign a Plan to a Subclient and you’re done.  It’s not the Storage Policy which is an issue as much as the scheduling.  Scheduling is where people get too granular and end up making a spaghetti mess of the environment.

Take over an environment with 10,000+ clients and try to reverse engineer the scheduling.  It can be an absolute mess to understand, especially if the backup admins felt obligated to use their power of granular control and obfuscate everything.

You trade some granularity for easier scaling.  That’s not to say you there’s no granular capabilities, but you weigh where they’re truly necessary.  Often people get into the groove of using features because they can, not because they need to.

I prefer KISS principles in design and operation.

Thanks,
Scott

Hmm, I don’t see how that simplifies scale - if I were to look at one of the CommCells within my previous environment, for SQL workloads alone, I would be replacing 10 finely tuned Schedule Policies and 14 Storage Policies with 140 Plans. We would often have a requirement to temporarily remove clients from standard scheduling and apply bespoke schedules - do we just create and manage more plans for that?

I don’t see how it simplifies anything, and I would also have concerns when it comes time to scale the underlying Commvault infrastructure.

As I said previously, it seems like simplified management for simple environments.