{"action":"created","issue":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60","repository_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap","labels_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60/labels{/name}","comments_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60/comments","events_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60/events","html_url":"https://github.com/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60","id":499489538,"node_id":"MDU6SXNzdWU0OTk0ODk1Mzg=","number":60,"title":"SVM limitations needs more clarification","user":{"login":"scottharney","id":6287688,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjYyODc2ODg=","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/6287688?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney","html_url":"https://github.com/scottharney","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"labels":[],"state":"open","locked":false,"assignee":null,"assignees":[],"milestone":null,"comments":6,"created_at":"2019-09-27T14:48:09Z","updated_at":"2019-12-06T16:35:24Z","closed_at":null,"author_association":"NONE","body":"Page: [Limitations for Cloud Volumes ONTAP 9.6 in all cloud providers](https://docs.netapp.com/us-en/cloud-volumes-ontap/reference_limitations_96.html)\r\n\r\n### Storage Virtual Machine (SVM) limitation\r\n\r\nCloud Volumes ONTAP supports one data-serving SVM and one or more SVMs used for disaster recovery.\r\n\r\nCloud Manager does not provide any setup or orchestration support for SVM disaster recovery. It also does not support storage-related tasks on any additional SVMs. You must use System Manager or the CLI for SVM disaster recovery\r\n\r\n---\r\nThe above section needs some changes.  \"one-data serving SVM\" spans the entire cloud ontap instance (HA pair or single node). The way it is written this is not entirely clear as it could be misconstrued to mean one data SVM per node in an HA pair.  \r\n\r\nalso the \"one or more SVMs used for disaster recovery\" is very unclear.  how would you use them?  Let's say I am replicating data to a CVO HA pair.  I have one primary data serving SVM.  I have another SVM that's my DR SVM and that's where my snapmirror destinations reside. I want to declare DR or perform a test. So I either break the snapmirror to make the destination volumes RW or perhaps flexclone and then present them out for access.  At this point I now have two data serving SVMs until my DR activity is done..."},"comment":{"url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/comments/562644620","html_url":"https://github.com/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60#issuecomment-562644620","issue_url":"https://api.github.com/repos/NetAppDocs/cloud-volumes-ontap/issues/60","id":562644620,"node_id":"MDEyOklzc3VlQ29tbWVudDU2MjY0NDYyMA==","user":{"login":"scottharney","id":6287688,"node_id":"MDQ6VXNlcjYyODc2ODg=","avatar_url":"https://avatars2.githubusercontent.com/u/6287688?v=4","gravatar_id":"","url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney","html_url":"https://github.com/scottharney","followers_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/followers","following_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/following{/other_user}","gists_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/gists{/gist_id}","starred_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/starred{/owner}{/repo}","subscriptions_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/subscriptions","organizations_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/orgs","repos_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/repos","events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/events{/privacy}","received_events_url":"https://api.github.com/users/scottharney/received_events","type":"User","site_admin":false},"created_at":"2019-12-06T16:35:24Z","updated_at":"2019-12-06T16:35:24Z","author_association":"NONE","body":"I may be having a discussion today with netapp regarding a potential CVO deployment. Customer number of CVO HA pairs is driven by requirement to segregate SVM contents (NAS share data) and not by capacity or performance.  In other words, not being able to \"officially\" support multiple production SVMs per CVO pair is going to cost this customer money.  It is too painful for them to merge legacy shares migrating from on-prem netapp in separate SVMs that have different access requirements and in some cases shares with conflicting names.  This is a common issue in large enterprise NAS deployments and significant reason why shops using netapp deploy multiple SVMs for their SMB server names.  SVM-DR would certainly drive even more value potential"}}
{"actor":{"display_login":"scottharney"}}