DFS/FRS: best practice?

[Oops_my_bad]

Hello

 

I would like to pick someones brains who uses/knows about DFS and FRS..

 

Basically we use one beefy file server. We also have another identical server that is being underused (ie it just has a few installs). i think it was intended to be setup as a replication partner but my predecessor just never got round to it. i would like to setup this identical server so that we have 2 file servers that are "mirrored" and so that files can be accessed from a single namespace even if one of the servers goes offline

 

Each server has a RAID array. I would like to set up 2 disks in that array that are RAID-1 (for the OS) and a further 5 disks that are RAID-5 (for the storage/D drive) Now is it possible to have a mixed RAID config like this or is this a bad idea? I'm pretty sure the hardware will support it but was just wondering incase it would swamp the controller.

 

Also what is the general concensus for the location of staging directory? Should I set up another logical drive or just have it in a folder on an existing drive? Also does there need to be a staging directory on both servers?

 

Thanks! :oops:

[alonebfg]

here is the microsort spill if you dont already have it http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/techinfo/overview/dfsfaq.mspx#ETKAC.

I run dfs and replacation on profiles and home dir only as if server falles over at least people can still log in and access the my docs. as for the rest i have left but i am looking at sharing a folder on a linux server via dfs which i bolive i can do but have not got that far yet. As far as i know both server dives dont have to be raided i have one raided and one not and it seems to work fine but am still playing at the moment.

[srochford]

First question, what version of Windows? If it's 2003 R2 then make sure you're using DFSR, not DFS (it's not installed by default; it's in the add components bit)

 

The original replication (NTFRS) in 2000 and 2003 works well for the sort of stuff that goes in sysvol (typically small, not changing frequently) but copes badly with large volumes of changes. It *can* work; experience tells me that it won't work when you need it and I've seen it take weeks (literally!) for servers to synch.

 

I've never tried replicating home folders. What we do is have 2 servers per site for students and robocopy home folders to the second server overnight. In the event of failure of one server we'd change the users to use the second server. Like this, they could lose a morning's work (say) but no more. If you need to be more up to date then you could do the copy more frequently (but it takes about 5 hours to do ours - c. 200,000 folders; 750,000 files so we don't!)

 

Most RAID controllers these days seem well able to keep up with the disc traffic. RAID 5 gives you the most efficient use of disc space; RAID 1 is most wasteful. In reality, if you lose 1 drive then your system is compromised with either - lose 2 drives and you're knackered :-)

 

Key to all these decisions is taking measurements - look at figures like the disc queue in perfmon - if it starts to get high then you might need to look at putting in a second raid controller (so that the OS is on one controller and the user discs on another)

[Oops_my_bad]

Thanks guys - good advice