Rick
-
Did PSS give
you any documentation about what files could and could not be copied using
DFS? Was there a size limitation on the actual file (not the DFS database
which is documented as 5MB)?
Thanks!
Jeff
-----Original Message-----
From: Jeffrey Dubyn [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, June 12, 2003 6:28 AM
To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'
Cc: 'Rick Kingslan'
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Possibly OT - DFS vs 3rd party DRRick -
Thanks for the info. I've found VSS to be quite useful in our lab, but don't think it will work well for Disaster Recovery. What bad experience did you have with DFS?Jeff-----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?
