I thought it wasn't able to do that - just on a datastore level?
I'm pretty sure we had to move the machines which wouldn't snapshot properly onto a dedicated datastore so we could continue to use SMVI for all of our machines.
We've also got a case open with Netapp and VMWare in an attempt to fix some bugs in VMWare tools for Windows to handle snapshotting better when triggered by SMVI.
On 12/01/2009 19:05, "Ken Williams" kwillia@smud.org wrote:
Sounds like it can be used on a per machine basis, so it would be good to exclude trouble machines.
-----Original Message----- From: owner-toasters@mathworks.com [mailto:owner-toasters@mathworks.com] On Behalf Of Sto Rage(c) Sent: Friday, January 09, 2009 3:22 PM To: toasters@mathworks.com Subject: Re: SMVI - Limitations?
On Fri, Jan 9, 2009 at 12:19 AM, Darren Sykes Darren.Sykes@csr.com wrote:
You can tell SMVI (v1.1) not to perform OS level disk quiecing on those machines if that's any use to you? You'll then get a completely transparent Netapp level snapshot and won't interfere with the VM itself.
Darren
It is SMVI v1.01 BTW, not 1.1 Not sure I understand this correctly, but if you are bypassing OS disk quiesce (VMWare snapshot) and doing transparent NetApp level snapshot, then why do you even need SMVI installed? Can't we just do the regular filer level snap schedule? We just upgraded to 1.01 and noticed the checkbox and were wondering about its potential use. Any ideas?
thanks -G
To report this email as spam click https://www.mailcontrol.com/sr/H7sixEVl!03TndxI!oX7UuoY1VmXKYhKDpIkVl+IfrGcp... aV5!Lv4tbBLjXYqeMVvstNucRnUJGp10b+rkp2Q== .