| Author |
Message |
Antknee
Guest
|
 Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 12:53 am Post subject:
DFS root cascading |
|
|
Hi. I watched a webcast on File Servers/NAS and DFS. It mentioned cascading
DFS roots for large DFS deployments. I am wondering if there are any details
on how this would help work around DFS/FRS limits.
Here is our set up: (2) 2k3 Enterprise Storage Servers, (400) W2k3 Standard
domain controllers, each in their own branch office.
We have one DFS root with 400 links for each BO DC. One target in the link
is the BO DC, the second target is one of the Storage Servers. Total data
size is about 300GB of data, over 1 million files. So each Storage Server is
a member of 200 links.
From DFS and FRS FAQs, all the above mentioned specs violate either an FRS
or a DFS limitation.
Given the fact that I really can't change any of the above specs, will
cascading DFS roots really help us at all?
Thanks! |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Glenn L
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 6:47 am Post subject:
Re: DFS root cascading |
|
|
It looks like you have 300Gs (1 million files) spread across 400 links.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Are you experiencing a technical issue with your setup?
Lets split up DFS and FRS. You cannot compare them with respect to
limitations. They are two completely different technologies.
FRS
This design is less than 0.75gig and ~2500 files per replica set (link).
That in itself is no problem for FRS to handle. But when a storage server
is a link target for 200 links you have a different story.
The storgage server is now responsible for 150GIGs and 500000 files across
all links it is a target for.
You are beyond the topology recommended limit, the max data limit and are at
the number of files limit.
see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=840675
I would say you are taxing FRS on these boxes. If you look at the FRS
process on these boxes it is probably occupying a large amount of memory and
CPU resources to keep up with the demand.
You can minimize the impact on FRS by staggaring the replication schedules
of the links as much as possible. Its hard to say if you would see any
benefits.
See "Using FRS an an Availability Strategy" and "Increasing Data
Availabiltiy by Using FRS" in Chap 2 "Designing and Deploying File Servers"
of the W2K3 Deployment guide.
DFS
This design falls well within the 5000 link limit recommended for a single
DFS root.
You are not exceeding or even coming close to what DFS can handle.
Adding DFS roots and breaking up the links between multiple roots will not
change the amount of work FRS will have to do to keep up with the
synchronization demands.
If you start experiencing technical issues with file synchronization, you
should probably start looking at third party data synchronization solutions.
There are many to choose from.
If you are not experiencing any technical issues, then count your lucky
stars :-)
Hope that helps
See the following technical references for indepth discussions on the
interworkings DFS and FRS
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/windowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/W2K3TR_dfs_intro.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/windowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/W2K3TR_frs_intro.asp
--
Glenn L
CCNA, MCSE 2000/2003 + Security
"Antknee" <Antknee@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D9A08360-C25A-4710-9FC5-BAECBC06B2CF@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | Hi. I watched a webcast on File Servers/NAS and DFS. It mentioned
cascading
DFS roots for large DFS deployments. I am wondering if there are any
details
on how this would help work around DFS/FRS limits.
Here is our set up: (2) 2k3 Enterprise Storage Servers, (400) W2k3
Standard
domain controllers, each in their own branch office.
We have one DFS root with 400 links for each BO DC. One target in the link
is the BO DC, the second target is one of the Storage Servers. Total data
size is about 300GB of data, over 1 million files. So each Storage Server
is
a member of 200 links.
From DFS and FRS FAQs, all the above mentioned specs violate either an FRS
or a DFS limitation.
Given the fact that I really can't change any of the above specs, will
cascading DFS roots really help us at all?
Thanks! |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Antknee
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 9:31 pm Post subject:
Re: DFS root cascading |
|
|
You are right about the files.
Yes, replication stopped working at about 300 links. I have disabled
replication and am looking to rebuild DFS.
I guess I need more servers to distribute the links in order to make FRS work.
Does the replication interval setting on the IP site link affect FRS's
replication schedule?
Do you any experience with a specific third party replication tool?
Thanks!
"Glenn L" wrote:
| Quote: | It looks like you have 300Gs (1 million files) spread across 400 links.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Are you experiencing a technical issue with your setup?
Lets split up DFS and FRS. You cannot compare them with respect to
limitations. They are two completely different technologies.
FRS
This design is less than 0.75gig and ~2500 files per replica set (link).
That in itself is no problem for FRS to handle. But when a storage server
is a link target for 200 links you have a different story.
The storgage server is now responsible for 150GIGs and 500000 files across
all links it is a target for.
You are beyond the topology recommended limit, the max data limit and are at
the number of files limit.
see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=840675
I would say you are taxing FRS on these boxes. If you look at the FRS
process on these boxes it is probably occupying a large amount of memory and
CPU resources to keep up with the demand.
You can minimize the impact on FRS by staggaring the replication schedules
of the links as much as possible. Its hard to say if you would see any
benefits.
See "Using FRS an an Availability Strategy" and "Increasing Data
Availabiltiy by Using FRS" in Chap 2 "Designing and Deploying File Servers"
of the W2K3 Deployment guide.
DFS
This design falls well within the 5000 link limit recommended for a single
DFS root.
You are not exceeding or even coming close to what DFS can handle.
Adding DFS roots and breaking up the links between multiple roots will not
change the amount of work FRS will have to do to keep up with the
synchronization demands.
If you start experiencing technical issues with file synchronization, you
should probably start looking at third party data synchronization solutions.
There are many to choose from.
If you are not experiencing any technical issues, then count your lucky
stars :-)
Hope that helps
See the following technical references for indepth discussions on the
interworkings DFS and FRS
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/windowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/W2K3TR_dfs_intro.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/windowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/W2K3TR_frs_intro.asp
--
Glenn L
CCNA, MCSE 2000/2003 + Security
"Antknee" <Antknee@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D9A08360-C25A-4710-9FC5-BAECBC06B2CF@microsoft.com...
Hi. I watched a webcast on File Servers/NAS and DFS. It mentioned
cascading
DFS roots for large DFS deployments. I am wondering if there are any
details
on how this would help work around DFS/FRS limits.
Here is our set up: (2) 2k3 Enterprise Storage Servers, (400) W2k3
Standard
domain controllers, each in their own branch office.
We have one DFS root with 400 links for each BO DC. One target in the link
is the BO DC, the second target is one of the Storage Servers. Total data
size is about 300GB of data, over 1 million files. So each Storage Server
is
a member of 200 links.
From DFS and FRS FAQs, all the above mentioned specs violate either an FRS
or a DFS limitation.
Given the fact that I really can't change any of the above specs, will
cascading DFS roots really help us at all?
Thanks!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Glenn L
Guest
|
| Posted:
Fri Jan 21, 2005 11:46 pm Post subject:
Re: DFS root cascading |
|
|
You control replication scheduling through the DFS admin MMC.
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/enterprise/proddocs/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/enterprise/proddocs/en-us/sag_DFprocsFRSSched.asp
Site link schedules only affect the SYSVOL replica set.
Yes, adding more storage servers will bring you under the design limit
recommendations. But this may not make FRS work for you unless you bring on
a few more storage servers. FRS is just not a robust file replication
service.
I do not have any direct experience with third party replication tools.
"Legato Replstor" and "Xosoft Wansync" come to mind.
--
Glenn L
CCNA, MCSE 2000/2003 + Security
"Antknee" <Antknee@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:8453FEA8-0EE6-4CC2-BF70-DF49274CE9AC@microsoft.com...
| Quote: | You are right about the files.
Yes, replication stopped working at about 300 links. I have disabled
replication and am looking to rebuild DFS.
I guess I need more servers to distribute the links in order to make FRS
work.
Does the replication interval setting on the IP site link affect FRS's
replication schedule?
Do you any experience with a specific third party replication tool?
Thanks!
"Glenn L" wrote:
It looks like you have 300Gs (1 million files) spread across 400 links.
Correct me if I am wrong.
Are you experiencing a technical issue with your setup?
Lets split up DFS and FRS. You cannot compare them with respect to
limitations. They are two completely different technologies.
FRS
This design is less than 0.75gig and ~2500 files per replica set (link).
That in itself is no problem for FRS to handle. But when a storage
server
is a link target for 200 links you have a different story.
The storgage server is now responsible for 150GIGs and 500000 files
across
all links it is a target for.
You are beyond the topology recommended limit, the max data limit and are
at
the number of files limit.
see http://support.microsoft.com/?kbid=840675
I would say you are taxing FRS on these boxes. If you look at the FRS
process on these boxes it is probably occupying a large amount of memory
and
CPU resources to keep up with the demand.
You can minimize the impact on FRS by staggaring the replication
schedules
of the links as much as possible. Its hard to say if you would see any
benefits.
See "Using FRS an an Availability Strategy" and "Increasing Data
Availabiltiy by Using FRS" in Chap 2 "Designing and Deploying File
Servers"
of the W2K3 Deployment guide.
DFS
This design falls well within the 5000 link limit recommended for a
single
DFS root.
You are not exceeding or even coming close to what DFS can handle.
Adding DFS roots and breaking up the links between multiple roots will
not
change the amount of work FRS will have to do to keep up with the
synchronization demands.
If you start experiencing technical issues with file synchronization, you
should probably start looking at third party data synchronization
solutions.
There are many to choose from.
If you are not experiencing any technical issues, then count your lucky
stars :-)
Hope that helps
See the following technical references for indepth discussions on the
interworkings DFS and FRS
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/windowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/W2K3TR_dfs_intro.asp
http://www.microsoft.com/resources/documentation/WindowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/Default.asp?url=/resources/documentation/windowsServ/2003/all/techref/en-us/W2K3TR_frs_intro.asp
--
Glenn L
CCNA, MCSE 2000/2003 + Security
"Antknee" <Antknee@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:D9A08360-C25A-4710-9FC5-BAECBC06B2CF@microsoft.com...
Hi. I watched a webcast on File Servers/NAS and DFS. It mentioned
cascading
DFS roots for large DFS deployments. I am wondering if there are any
details
on how this would help work around DFS/FRS limits.
Here is our set up: (2) 2k3 Enterprise Storage Servers, (400) W2k3
Standard
domain controllers, each in their own branch office.
We have one DFS root with 400 links for each BO DC. One target in the
link
is the BO DC, the second target is one of the Storage Servers. Total
data
size is about 300GB of data, over 1 million files. So each Storage
Server
is
a member of 200 links.
From DFS and FRS FAQs, all the above mentioned specs violate either an
FRS
or a DFS limitation.
Given the fact that I really can't change any of the above specs, will
cascading DFS roots really help us at all?
Thanks!
|
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in