RecoverPoint and SSM module

Hello,

Cisco provides a document that shows the various SSI's and what they support. For Recoverpoint, you would want to look for SANTAP support. The document is located at: http://www.cisco.com/en/US/docs/storage/san_switches/mds9000/sw/ssi/compatibility/matrix/SSImtx.html

While this provides a good start, please keep in mind that just because Cisco states the SSI should work for SANTAP (Recoverpoint), this doesn't make it officially supported by EMC. To find out what is officially supported by EMC, you would need to look at the Recoverpoint documentation, the Release Notes in particular, on Powerlink at Home > Support > Technical Documentation and Advisories > Software ~ P-R ~ Documentation > RecoverPoint.

We spilt off Recoverpoint support from the MDS Team so I no longer work on Recoverpoint products. I use to create a list of all the different Recoverpoint versions and their corresponding SAN-OS versions along with their accompanying SSI modules in an EMC Knowledgebase solution but it is now obsolete. If there is demand for this type of listing, I can talk to the Recoverpoint Support Team to see if they can look into creating a new one. Please let me know.

Thank you.

Yes, I am interested in this (very much). I am trying to put this together for the cisco-emc alliance team - also including Invista. I have been referencing the docs that you mentioned plus the RecoverPoint Support Matrix. I'm going as far back as SAN-OS 2.1.2j for Invista 1.0 SP1.

I'm not finding a very clear deliniation of what's supported on what... but I'll bet there's someone in the RecoverPoint group that know's this.

Thanks for your response.

Cisco's matrix is generic and not the official word on supported versions. For the official and final word use the release notes for each product and version. EMC does extensive testing to ensure comparability with various array's, switches and host which it publishes in the EMC Support Matrix for each product.
I have listed the current supported versions below.
RP 2.3 SP2 - CSOS 3.0(2a) / SSI 3.0(2j)
RP 2.4 SP1 - CSOS 3.1(2b) / SSI 3.1(2m)
RP 2.4 SP1 - CSOS 3.1(3a)(s10) / SSI 3.1(3)(s27)
RP 2.4 SP2 - CSOS 3.1(3a)(s10) / SSI 3.1(3)(s27)
RP 3.0 - CSOS 3.1(3a)(s10) / SSI 3.1(3r)
RP 3.0 - CSOS 3.2(2c) / SSI 3.2(3j)

BTW here are the versions for Invista, if you use these in any presentations, be sure you add a note that these are current as of today and all are subject to change, refer to the release notes for the official current versions.

INV 2.0 - GA Release CSOS 3.1(2) / SSI 3.1(2b)
INV 2.0 Patch 1 - CSOS 3.1(2) / SSI 3.1(2b)
INV 2.0 Patch 2 - CSOS 3.1(3a) / SSI 3.1(3)
INV 2.0 Patch 3 - CSOS 3.1(3a) / SSI 3.1(3k)
INV 2.0 Patch 4 - CSOS 3.1(3a) / SSI 3.1(3k)
INV 2.0 Patch 5 - CSOS 3.2(2c) / SSI 3.2(3i)
INV 2.1 GA Release - CSOS 3.1(3a) / SSI 3.1(3p)
INV 2.1 Patch 1 - CSOS 3.2(2c) / SSI 3.2(3j)

I have been talking with Invista and RecoverPoint consultants from EMC and they stated that Invista and RecoverPoint cannot operate on the same SSM, they require separate SSM line cards. This applies to all releases.

This is terrific information - THANKS!

I have a couple of follow-ups...

1) Is the info in the last 2 threads (Invista & RecoverPoint release support) available in any one document? Where should I go for an update?

2) I saw a note in one of the release notes that said Invista and Recover Point are not supported on the same SSM engine (I assume just for that release) Is there a document that lists which Invista and RecoverPoint releases are supported on the same SSM engine?

3) These last 2 threads show the currently supported release combinations, correct? Does that mean that all other (earlier) release combinations are now unsupported? Or, is there a list of other supported release combinations?

4) Also, I'm showing from the Invista support matrix ... (not on your list)
Invista 1.0 SP1 - CSOS 2.1(2b) / SSI 2.1(2j)
Invista 1.0 SP2 - CSOS 3.0(2a) / SSI 3.0(2i)

Also, RP release notes docs online
RP 2.3 GA, Patch 1, & Patch2 are not on your list. I don't see any reference to 2.3 SP2 or SP1 release notes on Powerlink, and RP 2.4 GA, & Patch 1 are not listed on your list.

Is there a reason these were left off of your list? Are they no longer supported?

5) What about support for Kashya releases before the acquisition? Are any of those supported?

Thanks for your help!!!

1) Not in one document, but in one type the release notes for each product release..

2) No RecoverPoint and Invista Require separate SSM modules. I do not see this every changing. Even if it was technically feasible there is not enough isolation in the SSM architecture to make it a good practice.

3) Yes, at least the version that are marketable.

4) Invista 1.0 is not sold any longer and all customers have moved to 2.0 patch 1 or above.

2.3 Sp2 is listed in the above list, 2.3 sp1 I did not list would encourage customers to use 2.4 or 3.0. , with the ITL increase that are supported under the RP 3.0 with Cisco 3.2.2c it is recommended to move to this version.

5) Not sure what the supported versions or even if they were supporting SANTAp at that time.

Thanks for indulging me on some more questions

Back to question #3:
3) These last 2 threads show the currently supported release combinations, correct? Does that mean that all other (earlier) release combinations are now unsupported? Or, is there a list of other supported release combinations?
Answer: Yes, at least the version that are marketable.
Follow-up: Yes to which question, these are the only currently supported combinations?

New question: Here's a note from the RecoverPoint 2.3 release notes: "SANTap 3.0 support - The RecoverPoint system supports Cisco SANTap version 3.0"

What's this refering to? The SSI rel 3.x.x?

Another: Are there different hardware versions? Or, are all software versions compatible with the same RecoverPoint hardware? Same question for Invista...

Thanks,
Jim

I discussed this with Recoverpoint Support and they are looking to create a centralized listing of all the RP versions and their supported SSIs.

Thank you.

The 3.0 referred to both the san os and ssi. The release notes for that version were not specific enough; later versions were updated with more both Sanos and SSI versions supported.

If a customer is deploying 2.3 it will be RP 2.3 SP2 - CSOS 3.0(2a) / SSI 3.0(2j)

There are different hardware versions for both RP and Invista. RP 3.0 will run on Gen 2 and Gen 3 hardware. Currently we only ship gen 3 hardware.

Invista 1.0 ran on hardware specific to it, 2.0 and above run on the same hardware platform.

Wow. That would be great.

I noticed that the Invista Support Matrix document has all of the information for the supported combinations of SAN-OS and SSI for each Invista Release. Maybe they could add a similar table into the Recover Point Support Matrix document.

Thanks for taking the issue to the RecoverPoint support folks.

I can't get to the Wiki to which you refer. Is that an EMC internal site? It'd be cool if that was opened up to customers or partners or maybe even Cisco internal.

Just so there is not duplicate activities make sure they are aware of the CS WIKI, it some of this already.
http://10.241.171.170/RecoverPoint/Change_Control/Support_Matrix
Also I think what was originally requested was a single location for both Invista and RP.

Good suggestion.. Will see if this is possible.

A couple more follow-ups....

Although, the documented compatible releases and the lists that you shared with us are almost the same, there are some inconsistencies. So, the question arises "do I use both, just the documented or just yours"?

If you reference the Cisco SSI Support document, they assume that if Invista is supported for an SSI at one SAN-OS, it is supported for all other SAN-OS releases for which that SSI is supported.

For instance, EMC states in the Support Matrix that Invista 2.0 patch1 is supported for SSI 3.1.2b under SAN-OS 3.1.2. Cisco seems to suggest that it should be supported for SAN-OS 3.1.1, 3.1.2, 3.1.2a, & 3.1.2b since that SSI release is supported for all of those. Is this an assumption that should not be made?

Thanks,
Jim