Isnt upgrading proxy basically removing the old proxy and deploying a new one ? I deploy a new proxy whenever I upgrade my Avamar and now with avamar v7 onwards each proxy being divided into 8 sub proxies, effort is more less and we need to deploy almost less than half of the proxies we would have used in say v6.1

I use the same approach while selecting proxies - all proxies/all datastores/all groups.

then i run the command on the utility --- java -jar proxycp.jar -selecthotaddstore which updates the proxy server visibility. and then proxy servers backup those VMs which they can backup.

https://community.emc.com/thread/200889

LOL  - I thought the same thing, but you CAN upgrade and not deploy new ones.

(some of us kind of high jacked another thread and had an in depth discussion on the pros and cons  - se the above link.)

That is where I saw that maybe some people do not set all/all/all but might be more picky about the proxy setup and that got me curious has to the how's and whys of setting up a proxy.

It also has me wondering just how the setup will be in 7.1 when the "8" are no longer displayed (again see the other thread).

Seems some find deploying new proxies to be a lot of work.  I don't, I think deploying new ones are easy.

Hence... the reason I wanted to learn more about how people setup proxies, maybe I am missing some nuance?

Really?  Nobody has anything to say?

I really wanted to know in what cases you would limit the Datastore or the group in a proxy.

otherwise it makes no sense that we have to go in and tell it ALL/ALL it would have been setup as default.

Yeah the only reason to specifically select datastores is maybe if you have a lot, you see in the backup log where the system scans the available datastores, it takes time but not a significant amount at all.

so yeah in most cases I always do a select all unless the systems are not setup by cluster or some other setup.

Richie

I have also heard of customers deselecting datastores if their proxies are able to see non-local datastores (e.g. iSCSI datastores on the other side of a WAN link) in order to ensure proxies only back up local data.

but a draw back to that would be if a server is only assigned to one proxy, and that proxy has an issue and does not work (I have had that happen a number of times) than that server would never backup.  So you would have to make sure each group has at lease 2 different proxies.

I don't think I want that logistic night mare.

I would think it would be advantageous from a load distribution stand-point.  Assigning proxies based on splitting the amount of data between them to maintain the most efficient backups.