Thought so. FRS always meant bad day when I had to change a GPO or
something in netlogon share. Makes me itch every time I hear I have to make a
change and this is simple stuff. I haven't had anything fail in a long time but
then I haven't changed anything in a really long time.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 11:27 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Possibly OT - DFS vs 3rd party DRWell, technically speaking - it's actually the FRS that Dfs uses to get files in the replicas from place to place. So, given that, it's FRS that has scarred me for life. However, I've not had any problems with any other incarnaions of FRS in the product. Huge issues with the replicas getting out of synch, holding on to just huge gobs of files without getting them to the other replicas (or, getting them onto the receiving server just to have the files sit there and fester).And, I have to take some responsibility. I tried to replicate things that Microsoft never told me that I coudn't. (Yes, you read that right) We excluded anything that might be an open file (.pst's, .mdb's, etc.) but until we opened a ticket with PSS, we didn't know that you couldn't Dfs RIS images. Well, I know that you can't now, and 3 years later, it's much clearer as to why it's not really a good idea to try.Regardless, Dfs is not as bad as it was. And with the improvements in FRS, it's only going to get better. Maybe.Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Joe
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 9:14 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Rick was the distaste DFS or FRS? If FRS, I have to say that I too have not been as thrilled as one could possibly be and that is simply in terms of policy and netlogon share replication, I am shellshocked from it now. However it's all fixed in the next hotfix or SP though... :oP-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Rick Kingslan
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 8:09 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Possibly OT - DFS vs 3rd party DRJeffrey,I personally am not a big fan of Dfs - mainly due to a very bad experience in the early days of Windows 2000 (April 2000). It has gotten better, but is not really a great solution to bank your DR process on. IMHO, depending on what your bandwidth is like, the move with Windows Server 2003 might justify itself with Volume Shadow Services. I've been working closely with VSS and primarily, Volume Shadow Copy, and IMHO, it Rocks!Rick Kingslan MCSE, MCSA, MCT
Microsoft MVP - Active Directory
Associate Expert
Expert Zone - www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/expertzone
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Jeffrey Dubyn
Sent: Wednesday, June 11, 2003 6:31 PM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]I have a customer looking for a disaster recovery solution for their Active Directory domain. They have one site on each coast and want to replicate the data. A VPN is available to each location. I was looking at either DoubleTake or a Veritas solution (Volume Replicator or Storage Replicator) but am having a hard time justifying using this over the built-in DFS. Anyone with any thoughts on this?
