wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 With a major upgrade imminent I've been looking into the possibility of clustering as opposed to NLB. I know linux (Beowolf?) can and does it easily enough but of course we'll be running Windows here (My choice really ). A few questions to the community at large. Firstly, I believe the clustering option to only be available to the Enterprise or Datacentre edition of Windows 2003 R2 or have I been misinformed? Secondly, has anyone else set this up and seen an improvement in comparison to what existed before? Thirdly, having looked in to large storage solutions I would look to put in place two large NAS boxes and setup DFS, can anyone see a flaw in this? I want to create the most reliable network possible (Within the budget limits of course! ) I would have thought that either NLB or Clustering would give me good transparency for Authentication and Authorisation etc and DFS good transparency for file storage e.g. User Areas, Departmental Learning Resources etc.. Having said this does anyone know of a good way to do the same with Printers/Printer Queues? Wes
Geoff Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Firstly, I believe the clustering option to only be available to the Enterprise or Datacentre edition of Windows 2003 R2 Correct. Secondly, has anyone else set this up and seen an improvement in comparison to what existed before? Not with windows, but it depends what applications your running. Exchange, SQL Server, IIS support clustering for example. Thirdly, having looked in to large storage solutions I would look to put in place two large NAS boxes and setup DFS, can anyone see a flaw in this? So whats the clustering for then? I've found DFS to be unreliable. Having said this does anyone know of a good way to do the same with Printers/Printer Queues Printer pooling? Use a Linux box with failover?
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 I was looking at the clustering for just DC reliability, but if you think that may be a little OTT then NLB would be the next step. Printer Pooling using a linux box? Is there a printer credit system available for Linux that can be integrated with AD as our school uses credits extensively (we charge for excessive printing)? I'm looking to install a couple of DCs but they wouldn't store anything else other than the OS and AD database. The storage would be done seperately I don't want to put too much on any server (All eggs in one basket) What would you recommend Geoff? Wes
Geoff Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Printer Pooling using a linux box? Is there a printer credit system available for Linux that can be integrated with AD as our school uses credits extensively (we charge for excessive printing)? CUPS + Samba. I'm looking to install a couple of DCs but they wouldn't store anything else other than the OS and AD database. The storage would be done seperately I don't want to put too much on any server (All eggs in one basket) What would you recommend Geoff? Just get a few basic 1U rack mounted servers. Set them up as DC's and scatter them around your site.
ChrisH Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I dont think you can cluster DCs as such. Something I read recently was saying about clustering and replication and how that other DCs in a cluster would not be upto date as they only come 'live' when the other goes down. It's something along those lines anyway
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 Is that other DCs or other nodes within the cluster though? If you have say 4 servers/nodes in the cluster then shouldn't they all be upto date? Each works as if part of the whole? Wes
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 I thought a cluster was a group of servers setup so they acted as one? So you could have say 2 clusters one entity as a DC another as a storage server? Wes
Geoff Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 A fileserver does not have to be a DC. DC's already have redundancy built in due to the way active directory works. There's no need to add another layer of redundancy/complexity by clustering them. Indeed, it isn't a supported configuration.
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 Fair enough judging from the extra cost of Enterprise it may not be a financially sound idea either. The setup I'm looking at currently wouldn't have the DCs being fileservers anyway I'd rather have everything distributed across several servers. Wes
NetworkGeezer Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 A fileserver does not have to be a DC. DC's already have redundancy built in due to the way active directory works. There's no need to add another layer of redundancy/complexity by clustering them. Indeed, it isn't a supported configuration. The only thing that may not have a smooth failover is FSMO. I haven't tried but can roles be seized post mortem, as it were? Has any onr tried using FRS to create redundant file storage?
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 You can but I think the Schema master maybe the only one to give you trouble in that area. If the original FSMO master has been stolen, corrupted or otherwise unavailable then you need NTDSUTIL (Info here: KB255504). Microsoft spends most of its time saying that DFS is much better than FRS but after Geoff saying DFS is unreliable I would have thought FRS would be a more stable alernative without too much trouble setting it up, hadn't thought about it before, thanks! Wes
ChrisH Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 NTDSUTIL is fairly easy to use to seize or transfer all roles. Remember not all roles can be transfered through the GUI.
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 I believe the command line options can do that though ChrisH? Or am I incorrect? Wes
ChrisH Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 Thats what I meant in my first sentence by 'all roles'
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 Shows I should read you post indepth lol sorry :oops: 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
_Bob_ Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 after Geoff saying DFS is unreliable I would have thought FRS would be a more stable alernative 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.
CyberNerd Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 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.
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 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
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 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
CyberNerd Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 I think a SAN is a better solution for storage. 100%
wesleyw Posted March 21, 2006 Author Posted March 21, 2006 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
Ric_ Posted March 21, 2006 Posted March 21, 2006 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.
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now