Shows I should read you post indepth lol sorryops:
Having looked at the storage I'll think I'll test the FRS and the DFS setups for a month or two before going live I'm going to be setting up the system while the old network is still running anyway so it should all be fine!
Wes
DFS and FRS tend to hand in hand. DFS gives an alias to duplicate shares spread across the network and FRS syncs the data between them. I think FRS is actually what cased the issues Geoff refers to. When we used it, it got confused over file versioning and made a real mess of the shared data. DFS has been fine in my experience but it does mean finding another way to keep shares up to date.after Geoff saying DFS is unreliable I would have thought FRS would be a more stable alernative
could setup 2 servers and Rsync the data as you would a backup, if the main server fails a ping then the backup server would take priority. Its a simple way to add redundancy to file/web servers - but you don't get the disk speed increase that global filesystem gives.
Seeing as they look to SYSVOL is there a problem in Windows 2003 with share sizes? I seem to remember something mentioned in the distant past about this being the case?
Wes
What would you say were the main improvements in R2 over the original?
I know you now have greater control over users area sizes within the Windows system with some clever wizards for setting them up, can this be done on a Group or better yet user by user?
Wes
I think a SAN is a better solution for storage.
100%I think a SAN is a better solution for storage.
I'd like redundancy with this though but the cost for SAN I thought was high (Need about 0.75 - 1TB of storage) Any ideas where I could source this and the cost of it?
Wes
Send Ric a PM. He's got some nice Sun gear.
The SAN is EMC (may as well buy the best) and since it is the SATA based AX100 it wasn't too expensive.Originally Posted by Geoff
There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)
Posting Permissions
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks