| Author |
Message |
Evans
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sun Sep 18, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
DFS, but use robocopy instead of FRS |
|
|
I am not sure if this is a good idea but would like to try.
My client has 2 servers, both DCs but only one is used all the time. The
2nd server acts as a backup (no for load balancing) only when server 1 is
out of action.
Given this is the case, would it be a good idea to use DFS for the share
directory and then use robocopy to copy the updated files to the 2nd server?
If yes, can I run DFS without FRS?
Any idea would be appreciated.
Thanks,
Evans |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Paul Williams [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Sep 21, 2005 8:52 pm Post subject:
Re: DFS, but use robocopy instead of FRS |
|
|
| Quote: | can I run DFS without FRS?
|
Yes. Although I would still use a domain-based root (and create a replica
of the root).
Whether or not you choose to use FRS as the replication mechanism is up to
you. Personally, I would use it. You can only enable referrals to the
active server. In the event of a failure, you can (assuming you do
replicate the root) enable referrals to the standby DC.
You can do this, however, even if you choose to use robocopy. I just think
FRS is very much up to this task (it would only be an issue if changes were
being made on both servers).
--
Paul Williams
Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
http://www.msresource.net | http://forums.msresource.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Evans Leung
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Sep 23, 2005 6:03 am Post subject:
Re: DFS, but use robocopy instead of FRS |
|
|
Paul,
the reasons I was thinking of using robocopy instead of FRS are:
1) the server only need to be sychronised every hour or so, and the 2nd
server is not needed unless the 1st server falied, ie, not for load
balancing, rather it's for high availablility.
2) the directory (E:\data - domain root) is 60GB big, I tried using FRS 2
weekends ago and it failed - not only it failed to copy all files to the new
server, it actually deletes many files from the original server as well!
3) is 60GB too big for FRS? Is there a limit for FRS? If so, how can I
accomodate that?
Evans
"Paul Williams [MVP]" <ptw2001@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:%238GJkltvFHA.664@tk2msftngp13.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | can I run DFS without FRS?
Yes. Although I would still use a domain-based root (and create a replica
of the root).
Whether or not you choose to use FRS as the replication mechanism is up to
you. Personally, I would use it. You can only enable referrals to the
active server. In the event of a failure, you can (assuming you do
replicate the root) enable referrals to the standby DC.
You can do this, however, even if you choose to use robocopy. I just
think
FRS is very much up to this task (it would only be an issue if changes
were
being made on both servers).
--
Paul Williams
Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
http://www.msresource.net | http://forums.msresource.net
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Paul Williams [MVP]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Sat Sep 24, 2005 12:50 pm Post subject:
Re: DFS, but use robocopy instead of FRS |
|
|
| Quote: | 3) is 60GB too big for FRS? Is there a limit for FRS? If so, how can I
accomodate that?
|
I don't think it is. Although you're going to need to increase the staging
folder size and the NTFS USN journal size considerably.
I've discussed doing this in a couple of other threads here this week. Have
a quick look. If you want me to post the info. on how to do this I will...
--
Paul Williams
Microsoft MVP - Windows Server - Directory Services
http://www.msresource.net | http://forums.msresource.net |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in