In a MetroCluster over IP migration scenario from a legacy system to AFF A250, which migration option set would be supported?

In a MetroCluster over IP migration scenario from a legacy system to AFF A250, which migration option set would be supported?

• A. Host-based copy migration only
• B. SnapMirror copy only
• C. Both host-based and SnapMirror copy
• D. Neither

Answer: (C)

In MetroCluster over IP migration, you can use both methods to move data from the legacy system to the AFF A250. SnapMirror copy handles block-level replication between the old and new clusters, keeping data in sync and supporting a non-disruptive transition. Host-based copy migration moves data through the host or file-system level, which is useful for data that isn’t easily captured by SnapMirror or for applications that benefit from host-level migration. Using both methods gives you maximum flexibility: you can replicate volumes with SnapMirror while simultaneously performing host-based copies for other data sets, then switch over when ready. That combination is supported and often the most practical approach in a MetroCluster IP migration, which is why the best option set includes both.

In MetroCluster over IP migration, you can use both methods to move data from the legacy system to the AFF A250. SnapMirror copy handles block-level replication between the old and new clusters, keeping data in sync and supporting a non-disruptive transition. Host-based copy migration moves data through the host or file-system level, which is useful for data that isn’t easily captured by SnapMirror or for applications that benefit from host-level migration.

Using both methods gives you maximum flexibility: you can replicate volumes with SnapMirror while simultaneously performing host-based copies for other data sets, then switch over when ready. That combination is supported and often the most practical approach in a MetroCluster IP migration, which is why the best option set includes both.