Skip to main content

What are the benefits of Plans?


Erase4ndReuseMedia
Byte
Forum|alt.badge.img+13

Can anyone explain the benefits of Plans over the traditional Storage Policy and Schedule Policy model? I must be missing something that makes up for the loss of granular control.

11 replies

Forum|alt.badge.img+14

Erase4ndReuseMedia
Byte
Forum|alt.badge.img+13

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


Jennifer Kelley
Vaulter
Forum|alt.badge.img+17

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

 


Jennifer Kelley
Vaulter
Forum|alt.badge.img+17

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


Scott Moseman
Vaulter
Forum|alt.badge.img+18

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

Thanks,
Scott
 


Erase4ndReuseMedia
Byte
Forum|alt.badge.img+13

Simple management for simple environments, I guess.

What about large enterprise customers who need the granular control?


Scott Moseman
Vaulter
Forum|alt.badge.img+18

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
 


Erase4ndReuseMedia
Byte
Forum|alt.badge.img+13

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


Erase4ndReuseMedia
Byte
Forum|alt.badge.img+13

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


Scott Moseman
Vaulter
Forum|alt.badge.img+18

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


Erase4ndReuseMedia
Byte
Forum|alt.badge.img+13

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.


Reply


Cookie policy

We use cookies to enhance and personalize your experience. If you accept you agree to our full cookie policy. Learn more about our cookies.

 
Cookie settings