| Author |
Message |
snolds
Guest
|
 Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:25 am Post subject:
DFS/RFS -- A replacement for Site Server? |
|
|
We are slowly starting to replace our server 2000 boxes with server 2003.
Since Site Server is no longer being supported we're looking for a
replacement and I was wondering if DFS/FRS could do it.
We have one box which is a test bed for our developers, when they have code
they want put into production, they copy the files to a directory that is
monitored by site server, when it sees a change, it pushes it out to the
production server.
That's all the functionality we are looking for. Any suggestions would be
appreciated. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
Richard Chinn [MSFT]
Guest
|
| Posted:
Tue Nov 23, 2004 12:05 pm Post subject:
Re: DFS/RFS -- A replacement for Site Server? |
|
|
FRS can work well in the publication scenario you described where
changes originating on one machine are sent out to another server(s)
where data is only read. In this case, there should be no conflicting
changes to deal with, and FRS is basically replicating in one
direction.
There are some scalability limits you should be aware of. Please see:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;840675
Also, to use FRS, you need to have Active Directory. If you have
non-domain joined machines, FRS will not work.
--Richard
Please post FRS related questions to
microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs and prefix the subject line
with "FRS:" to make it easier to spot. Note that FRS is used to
replicate SYSVOL on domain controllers and DFS root and link targets.
For additional FRS resources, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/frs.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:25:04 -0800, snolds
<snolds@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
| Quote: | We are slowly starting to replace our server 2000 boxes with server 2003.
Since Site Server is no longer being supported we're looking for a
replacement and I was wondering if DFS/FRS could do it.
We have one box which is a test bed for our developers, when they have code
they want put into production, they copy the files to a directory that is
monitored by site server, when it sees a change, it pushes it out to the
production server.
That's all the functionality we are looking for. Any suggestions would be
appreciated. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
snolds
Guest
|
| Posted:
Wed Nov 24, 2004 8:01 pm Post subject:
Re: DFS/RFS -- A replacement for Site Server? |
|
|
Thank you for the reply Richard, we haven't yet started using Active
Directory so it looks like I'm looking for a third party solution.
"Richard Chinn [MSFT]" wrote:
| Quote: | FRS can work well in the publication scenario you described where
changes originating on one machine are sent out to another server(s)
where data is only read. In this case, there should be no conflicting
changes to deal with, and FRS is basically replicating in one
direction.
There are some scalability limits you should be aware of. Please see:
http://support.microsoft.com/default.aspx?scid=kb;en-us;840675
Also, to use FRS, you need to have Active Directory. If you have
non-domain joined machines, FRS will not work.
--Richard
Please post FRS related questions to
microsoft.public.windows.server.dfs_frs and prefix the subject line
with "FRS:" to make it easier to spot. Note that FRS is used to
replicate SYSVOL on domain controllers and DFS root and link targets.
For additional FRS resources, please visit
http://www.microsoft.com/frs.
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
rights.On Mon, 22 Nov 2004 10:25:04 -0800, snolds
snolds@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
We are slowly starting to replace our server 2000 boxes with server 2003.
Since Site Server is no longer being supported we're looking for a
replacement and I was wondering if DFS/FRS could do it.
We have one box which is a test bed for our developers, when they have code
they want put into production, they copy the files to a directory that is
monitored by site server, when it sees a change, it pushes it out to the
production server.
That's all the functionality we are looking for. Any suggestions would be
appreciated.
0 |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in