When it comes to migrating workloads to new environments, such as private, hybrid, or public clouds, there are different methods available. One of the key considerations is whether to opt for a Move or Clone approach. Migration software companies often have different perspectives on these two methods. In this blog post, we will explore the definitions of Move and Clone workflows and discuss the advantages of choosing the safer option.

MOve v Clone Animation

We’ll define Move as a migration workflow that creates a target VM or instance, replicates data, performs a failover step that powers down the source, powers up the target, and marks the migration as completed. We’ll define Clone as a migration workflow that creates a target VM or instance, replicates the bulk of the data, powers up the target in isolation to ensure the target won’t conflict with the running source, and marks the migration as completed. Clone also has the ability to run additional delta replications as needed to keep the data on source and target aligned.

 So which is better or which is safer?

The biggest problem with migration software that Moves a workload is the risk. Risk comes in two forms; risk of the migration failing and the workload not being available in either the source or target environment (in which case, restoring from backup is the only option) and the risk of the workload not working properly in the new target location. Moves often involve rollback or failback steps and methods to deal with the second form of risk. Moves don’t allow Application Owners to perform any form of testing or validation until the Move is complete.

Repeatedly, we witness instances where rollbacks become necessary due to the target environment's inadequate performance (worse than the source performance) or application components (Databases, Middleware, File Servers) that were not part of the Move, causing application issues due to the added latency of parts of an application in the source and parts in the target.

We prefer the safer option: 

Cloning workloads from the source to the target allows for safer and more predictive migration. Target clones running in isolation (protected behind either cloud native firewalling or private cloud network isolation) allow Application Owners to test and validate their application's function as expected before any cutover event. This validation can happen during regular business hours vs. in change windows that are traditionally done during out-of-office hours or on weekends. Delta sync allows for source and target workloads to be in lockstep leading up to the planned cutover event. 

Conclusion: Opting for a Safer Migration

In conclusion, choosing the right migration method is crucial for a successful and risk-free transition. Migrations that involve a Move method pose more significant risks to businesses compared to those utilizing the Clone method. Cloning workloads from source to target provides a safer and more predictable migration experience. By allowing testing and validation before the cutover event, Application Owners can ensure their applications function as expected in the new environment. Ultimately, by prioritizing safety and predictability, organizations can achieve seamless and efficient workload migrations.

When you are looking for the safer option, Migrate and optimize your workloads at scale, speed, and certainty with RiverMeadow—benefit from our unique Multi-Cloud, Multi-Platform workload mobility and cost-saving optimization capabilities. Talk to a RiverMeadow Expert Today, and let us help you move your Workloads in minutes, not days, weeks, or even years.