SRM error – failed to recover datastore. An error occurred during host configurationPosted: October 30, 2013 Filed under: SRM, VMware | Tags: An error occurred during host configuration, failed to recover datastore, site recovery manager, srm Leave a comment
I’d like to share an error I was receiving when running test recoveries with SRM 5.1.1 on a NetApp, ONTAP version 8.1.2. The datastores in question were NFS. The error received in the SRM report is consistently in Section 4. Create Writable Storage Snapshot, but strangely, on differing datastores, first datastore 6, then on datastore 5, then back to datastore 6. This is without making changes to the environment in between tests. Weird, huh? The exact error in the report is
“Error – Failed to recover datastore ‘<datastore6>. An error occurred during host configuration.”
Posted: February 5, 2012 Filed under: Site Surveys, SQL Server, VMware, Windows | Tags: srm, vcenter, vcenter design, vmware, vmware update manager, vmware vcenter, vum 3 Comments
In response to Miguel’s post, here are my thoughts:
I’m sure at least one of the VMware dudes Miguel was talking to was once a Windows System Administrator. I’m also sure that that same VMware dude cringed at the thought of needlessly putting multiple services on a single VM. He probably thought that as long as the customer had enough money for Windows Server licenses, compute and disk resources, that one should obviously separate each service into their own server. Now, to take a step back, let us say that, yes, it certainly is possible to put all the services you mentioned, vCenter, SQL 2008, VUM, and maybe even SRM on the same box, whether virtual or physical. But of course, whether this is possible or not is not in question. It’s whether it should or should not be done in the first place. I’m going to pull out the age old consultant’s answer and say, “It depends.”
It depends on if the customer has the budget for more Windows or SQL licenses. Does the customer have the compute and disk resources for several more servers? Is there already an existing SQL box or cluster that could be used? Is a DBA on staff, or at least a competent Windows Server admin? Does the customer’s environment even need a full blown SQL installation or would SQL Express do fine?
Now I’m coming from a background of government contracting where money is usually thrown at such projects. Resources for such an implementation are little thought about because they’re going to be there no matter what. This question could impact SMBs more, but probably not large corporations.
I think there are certainly right and wrong ways to implement based on circumstances. On the one hand, if you have the licenses, compute, disk, and administrative resources, I say absolutely, put each service on it’s own separate box. In more constrained environments, you may need to double up two or more services.
That’s not the least of it. Recovering from a failed VM will cost you less in time, effort, and hopefully, money. With an “all your eggs in one basket” approach, if one VM goes down, is somehow unrecoverable, then you’ve lost a lot of data. Separating your services reduces the liklihood that any one VM failure/loss will result in mutlitple services lost.
So I was having a discussion with a few fellow VMware dudes, and we were discussing the vCenter installation methods. One train of thought is to install vCenter, VUM, SQL 2008,, and SRM on 1 VM with 2 vCPUs, 4 GB of memory an a 100 GB drive, Monitor for performance and adjust as required by analyzing the performance data. I have alwbeen doing installations this way lately without issue. I have also done installations on dedicated SQL boxes \ VMs. I have gotten good performance out of the environment with having all services on a single VM. In larger environments of 20 or more hosts and 300 + VMs, I have used a dedicated SQL server. The SRM documetation recommends a separate server for the SRM installation, but I have not seen any issues with it on the same box, and there was not any performance degradation in an…
View original post 147 more words