Hi there,
Sorry a little late to the party but running a failover while the network is offline between the two SRM servers will not break SRM.
With SRM 5.5 and before you could select an option when doing a Planned Recovery to change this to Forced Recovery. This was used in the advent that some catastrophic had happened to your protected site and you needed to get things running on the recovery site. This would perform the failover but not run any of the operations at the protected site, i.e. power off VMs, etc.
This has changed slightly with SRM 5.8x and above however still possible. Obviously the previous option displayed through the GUI was too easy for somebody to make a mistake so a Forced Recovery now requires an advanced option to be set to put SRM in Disaster Recovery mode. This means you know what you are doing and really want to proceed :smileywink:
Anywho - to get back on topic once you have run the Forced Recovery and have got your Protected Site back online, with VMs shutdown and replication sorted, to put SRM back to a normal Failover state you simple run the Recovery Plan again without the Forced option. As communication at this point is available between both SRM server this will check the Protected Site, realise the VMs are powered down, check the array replication state and work out it is failed over and then finish successfully. Well... that is the glossy brochure.
Read here for more information on this process: Running a Recovery with Forced Recovery
I would be at Code Brown if required to do this but it can be done :smileyhappy:
The best and least risk of data loss, is a planned failover with both sites healthy. With my current employer, we do this once a year - failover to our Recovery Site, run there for a week and then failback.
The scenario you are describing should ONLY be used in a disaster scenario so the business would need to accept some data loss but it can be done and SRM will not be affected.
NOTE: As Finikiez said, I would NOT be doing this in a DR test scenario unless the business wants to lose data. Deliberately creating a split-brain scenario for your arrays is potentially a career limiting move.
Does this help?