Video Screencast Help

what Disaster Recovery Solution to use?

Created: 20 Dec 2013 • Updated: 06 Jan 2014 | 3 comments
This issue has been solved. See solution.


My company is planning to implement a DR solution for the our production enviornment.  The production enviorments that we have are all 2 node fail-over VCS clusters (SFHA 6.0.1).  The DR systems consist of a single node.  The products used for this DR solution is VVR for data replication and Geo-cluster for the failover.  There is layer 2 stretch network between the 2 sites (prod & DR).  We are discussing on 3 solutions,

1. Using VVR for data mirroring and creating single node cluster on the DR site and then creating a geo cluster between the prod and the DR sites.  Since the network is stretched,we are planning to have the DR ystems on the same VLAN/subnet as the prod systems.  The application VIP will also be the same on both the sites as the service group is up only on one site at a time.

2. Using VVR for data mirroring and adding the node in the DR as the third node in the cluster.

3.  Having a Pure Stretched Clusters.

Which solution mentioned above will be the best suited for this purpose?  Can you tell me about the pors and cons of each option.

Operating Systems:

Comments 3 CommentsJump to latest comment

mikebounds's picture



UK Symantec Consultant in VCS, GCO, SF, VVR, VxAT on Solaris, AIX, HP-ux, Linux & Windows

If this post has answered your question then please click on "Mark as solution" link below

Gaurav Sangamnerkar's picture


The solution to choose will really depend on what are the business priorities ... If you are really looking for a cost effective solution I would go with option 1 which is a very common VVR setup to have 2 nodes in prod in VCS while having 1 node in DR. With this setup you can implement GCO & make your data group as global service groups which will have capabilty to failover between sites in any disaster event.

More consistent though not cost effective solution would be to use Storage based replication like SRDF or Hitachi TruCopy. This will ensure more consistency though cost will be higher as comparing to VVR.

With the purpose of disaster recovery in mind,in the same cost what you will put for SRDF or Trucopy, you can build an third DR site with VVR with lesser cost & keep two copies of data. You can achieve this by creating another site with one node (whether GCO capable or not) with primary directly replicating to two different sites OR creating a bunker to replicate to two different sites.

Details on Bunker replication can be found here


PS: If you are happy with the answer provided, please mark the post as solution. You can do so by clicking link "Mark as Solution" below the answer provided.

unix_san's picture

Thanks for the reply Gaurav.

Sorry I forgot to mention that we have 2 different SANs (Netapp in production and IBM in DR), hence Storage based replication is not possible.