SLP AIR secondary duplication operation different retention to source.

A couple of questions:

1. Did you us an automatically created import SLP?
2. You say you want to copy the image to tap after six months at the DR site and " tape copy to be held for 1 year (from the backup start time)." You are ware that the retention is triggered from the day the copy is made not the day the backup was run?

In your first scenario you would backup, replicate, hold for six months, and then hold for a year longer. A full 18 months from when the backup was taken.

Your second scenario is closer to what you want, I believe and is doable by making the changes you set out.

Hi,

1. I'm not sure the SLP was created for us by a third party. I suspected it has been automatically created.

2. I was under the impression the duplication operation would be from the start date of the original backup and not actually the start time of the SLP duplication operation.

I have a call with support as we had our SLP setup as per the second scenario. When the duplication operation started after 6 months of being held on disk, the retention of the tape copy was one week (it looked like it was defaulting to the first selection for target retention which was greyed out) after the orginal backup date and this was in the past so subsequently it expired the image instantly.

From this it led me to believe the secondary operation retention was based on the backup start time from the source SLP.

I changed the SLP as per scenario 1 but the duplication jobs do not defer as I can not save the SLP. Both scenarios are not giving me the retention I require.

I just tested a scenario based on your setting.. on target side:

import - target retention period

duplication - 6 months (fixed)

After the import & duplication on target completed, I check the expiration date of the image on target master server, both the 1st (replicated) & 2nd (duplicated again) have the same expiry date, that means the 6 month retention period is relative to the target master server, or relative to the source image creation time.

Then, I changed the duplication retention to 1 year now.. and get a replicated image.

This time the duplication copy (on target) will have a retention period of 1 year relative to the image creation time, which I think it's what you want it to be. 

Anyhow, the admin guide did not describe up to this scenario (duplication of replication on target). 

Hi - thanks for your input. I also think the retention period of the duplicated copy is relative to the source image creation time.

My SLP's are showing the same output as you have tested when the duplication operation is fixed for 1 year.

However I want the duplication operation to be deferred until the replicated disk copy at the target is about to expire. This way we have the image on the target disk for 6 months and then when this is due to expire the duplication operation to tape starts and is held for a further 6 months. This retains the image for 1 year in total  - 6 months on disk then 6 months on tape.

The problem I'm seeing is that I can not save the SLP for this deferred duplication (using the Postpone creation of this copy until the source is about to expire check box) as when I save the policy I get an error 1507, Invalid deferred operation flag.

The technote for 1507, states the source copy (import operation in my SLP) has to have a fixed retention. This in turn means the duplication operation for my target SLP must have a target retention.

It's looking to me as though the retention of a secondary deferred duplication operation can not be different to the primary import operation. There must be a way around this otherwise it doesn't do what it say's on the tin.

This is currently with support where it has been acknowledged that the remote retetnion is not being passed through to the target domains which is where the remote retention is expected to be honoured with the secondary SLP operations.

An eeb is being worked on.

Thanks for sharing the update.

We'll probably see a Tech Alert on this one in coming weeks, so if anybody sees what was happening to Wulbur happening in THEIR environment, please do not hesitate to open a case and request the EEB mentioned in this thread!