| Author |
Message |
evans leung
Guest
|
Posted:
Sat Sep 10, 2005 12:51 am Post subject:
Clustering or DFS+FRS |
|
|
Hi,
a client has 2 servers on the same LAN, both running Windows 2003, he wants
to setup server2 to serve as a BACKUP only if server1 fails, with file
servers and print servers replicated.
What's the best way to achieve this? Clustering or DFS+FRS would do the
job?
Cheers,
Evans |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Jo K
Guest
|
Posted:
Mon Sep 12, 2005 4:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Clustering or DFS+FRS |
|
|
Even better, try Neverfail ( www.neverfailgroup.com )
DFS+FRS is good, but if a 1 meg file has a change to one character, it
will replication the entire 1 meg file. Neverfail is byte level
replication, so the same condition would yield a 1 byte
replication.....
Jo
evans leung wrote:
| Quote: | Hi,
a client has 2 servers on the same LAN, both running Windows 2003, he wants
to setup server2 to serve as a BACKUP only if server1 fails, with file
servers and print servers replicated.
What's the best way to achieve this? Clustering or DFS+FRS would do the
job?
Cheers,
Evans |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul Williams [MVP]
Guest
|
Posted:
Mon Sep 12, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject:
Re: Clustering or DFS+FRS |
|
|
Agree Neverfail is nice, but I need to slap the beast in a WAN setup to see
if it truly does what it says on the course.
Re. FRS or Clustered DFS there are a lots of considerations; here's a
couple:
-- Number of links. More than 5,000 - cluster; less either.
-- As mentioned by Jo K, FRS currently only does file level replication (R2
will change that with the introduction of DFSR - byte level replication and
a new UI for managing DFS replication)
DFS in a cluster works very nicely. If you can afford the slightly higher
cost of the cluster, I would look at that. Cluster service is quite nice at
creating user directory shares, etc. too.
--
Paul Williams
Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
http://www.msresource.net | http://forums.msresource.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
|
|