 | ||
| Why select VVR over array-based replication solutions | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Disaster recovery of volumes and file systems using Volume Replicator (VVR) and Veritas File Replicator (VFR) | Next |
| ||
| Why select VVR over array-based replication solutions | ||
|---|---|---|
| Prev | Disaster recovery of volumes and file systems using Volume Replicator (VVR) and Veritas File Replicator (VFR) | Next |
Advantages of VVR over array-based replication solutions:
VVR and VFR replication technologies provide more value and a cost effective solution to alternative costlier array replication technologies in the market.
VVR can be used on different disk vendor solutions on the primary and the secondary site. For example, VVR works with EMC disks on the primary site and Hitachi disks on the secondary site. VVR does not need the underlying disk configuration to be the same, it only requires the disk space to be the same.
VxVM, which is a layer below VVR, provides snapshot capabilities and integration with hosts. The snapshot and the host integration capabilities are not available with vendor array-based replication products.
In comparison to vendor array-based replication solutions, VVR scores more on cost, complexity of management, and high availability. For synchronous replication, you need to evaluate the network costs and complexity.
Consider the use case of disaster recovery of virtual machines across geographically separated data centers. The investments on storage are vastly reduced as FSS allows you to use commodity hardware alongside your existing network. The virtual machines use Storage Foundation as the backend storage and VVR replicating data written to volumes to the DR site and VFR replicating file system data to the DR site . Overall, you get a highly reliable storage management and replication solution that is running on low cost commodity hardware.
See “Disaster recovery for virtual machines in the Red Hat Enterprise Virtualization environment”.