Sean Martin <seanmarti...@gmail.com> wrote on 08/28/2009 02:31:17 PM:
> You can certainly implement DFS without replication. You would > simply need to follow your same procedures of backup/restore, > copying, etc. when a user moves from one site to another. It would > just eliminate the need for modifying the user's profile path. Keep > in mind that you'll need to modify your folder redirection GPO with > the DFS path as well. AH! DFS moved back into the realm of possible (for us). Without replication, I don't need as the full amount of storage at each site, enough to support *all* users; I'd really only need enough storage to support the number of users who can physically fit into the site ... (plus some as overflow, of course). > When a user accesses a DFS Namespace, DFS will determine which > member of that namespace to direct the connection to based on the > site they're logging in from. So I would need to make sure all my site info is correct and up-to-date ... So what happens in this case: User at Server_A/Site_A moves to Site_B. I don't know about this move. When the user logs in, DFS tries to map his profile to a server in his site. But there is no server in Site_B with a copy of his files (yet). Does he get an error? Does he just (transparently) connect long-distance back to his files at Site_A? When I do the backup/restore of his files to Site_B, he should Just Work. (He'd have to be logged out while I did the backup/restore, right?) > If you decided to use replication, DFS-R in Windows 2003 has pretty > good compression capabilities, as well as the ability to only > replicate changes to files. I had 600GB of user profiles/home > directories replicating between 4 servers and I routinely had > a reduction rate of 97% or greater. Example: If over a certain > period of time, 1TB of data was modified and needed to replicate, > DFS-R's compression and replication would only transfer 31GB. Good to know. Thanks! > > Sean > On Fri, Aug 28, 2009 at 8:43 AM, <michael.le...@pha.phila.gov> wrote: > Jon Harris <jk.har...@gmail.com> wrote on 08/28/2009 12:29:07 PM: > > > I don't know but I think DFS in 2000 was pretty poorly done, 2003 > > was better and I hear the 2008 fixed a lot of things so he may have > > issues with DFS. That is assuming he is still running all of his > > file servers on 2000, he does not say. > > 4 file servers are Win2003; one is still Win2000. That one is scheduled to > be upgraded to Win2003 in a couple months. > > We are also going to be going to 2003 AD later this year. (and 2008 AD > next year) > > So at some soon-to-be furute point, I will have 5 file servers, all at > 2003 AD, scattered about, all in a 2003 AD. If I do implement DFS, it > would be after all that. > > I guess I'm still unclear about the replication aspects of DFS. I get the > idea that I wouldn't need (num of servers x amount of each server storage) > at each site, but I am struggling to understand then how I am cutting out > bandwidth. I can see where I might be reducing it, but: > > If a person moves from Server #1 to Server #2, and I am using DFS, how > (what method occurs) does that user not be accessing his/her files over > the WAN link, if I am not replicating all their files to Server #2? I > suppose that is my fundamental knowledge block, at the moment. > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ > ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~ > > > ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
