[ActiveDir] Group Policy Folder Redirection Woes
I've set Desktop and My Documents to redirect to \\server\%username%$\Desktop and \My Documents respectively but it doesn't seem to be working properly. If I log on to another machine I get Desktop and Security folders on the desktop and the My Documents folder still points locally. If I look in the user folder on the server I can see a hidden My Documents folder which has some (but not all) of that user's local my documents. What's going on? List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
Oluwaseyi writes; How can I block direct telnet access into my exchange 2000 server. Please any help will be highly appreciated Seyi AFAIK you can't make a telnet connection to port 23 of a vanilla 2K/exchange 2K server. You'd get connect failed or similar. I have no idea of the actual application, but I am guessing you *do* mean telnet via port 23? I would think that a firewall of some description is the best idea if you want to control connections to the machine. If you want to turn on a level of TCP/IP security on the server, you can get to it via the options of advanced properties of the IP settings for the network card(s). Turn on TCP/IP filtering with the appropriate settings. You could install a software firewall. I think you need to be really clear about what you do or don't want to let through to the server before implementation, though. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
What I want to do is to block people from being able to telnet into either my port 25 which is the smtp port or my pop3 port 110, I am not really interested in port 23 for now. Could you please help on this Thanks -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Oluwaseyi writes; How can I block direct telnet access into my exchange 2000 server. Please any help will be highly appreciated Seyi AFAIK you can't make a telnet connection to port 23 of a vanilla 2K/exchange 2K server. You'd get connect failed or similar. I have no idea of the actual application, but I am guessing you *do* mean telnet via port 23? I would think that a firewall of some description is the best idea if you want to control connections to the machine. If you want to turn on a level of TCP/IP security on the server, you can get to it via the options of advanced properties of the IP settings for the network card(s). Turn on TCP/IP filtering with the appropriate settings. You could install a software firewall. I think you need to be really clear about what you do or don't want to let through to the server before implementation, though. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
Block SMTP and POP3 on your firewall then. -Original Message- From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access What I want to do is to block people from being able to telnet into either my port 25 which is the smtp port or my pop3 port 110, I am not really interested in port 23 for now. Could you please help on this Thanks -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Oluwaseyi writes; How can I block direct telnet access into my exchange 2000 server. Please any help will be highly appreciated Seyi AFAIK you can't make a telnet connection to port 23 of a vanilla 2K/exchange 2K server. You'd get connect failed or similar. I have no idea of the actual application, but I am guessing you *do* mean telnet via port 23? I would think that a firewall of some description is the best idea if you want to control connections to the machine. If you want to turn on a level of TCP/IP security on the server, you can get to it via the options of advanced properties of the IP settings for the network card(s). Turn on TCP/IP filtering with the appropriate settings. You could install a software firewall. I think you need to be really clear about what you do or don't want to let through to the server before implementation, though. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
If I block SMTP AND POP3 on my firewall, my exchange server will not be able to function because the exchange server which is behind my firewall needs these 2 protocols to function effectively. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:04 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Block SMTP and POP3 on your firewall then. -Original Message- From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access What I want to do is to block people from being able to telnet into either my port 25 which is the smtp port or my pop3 port 110, I am not really interested in port 23 for now. Could you please help on this Thanks -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Oluwaseyi writes; How can I block direct telnet access into my exchange 2000 server. Please any help will be highly appreciated Seyi AFAIK you can't make a telnet connection to port 23 of a vanilla 2K/exchange 2K server. You'd get connect failed or similar. I have no idea of the actual application, but I am guessing you *do* mean telnet via port 23? I would think that a firewall of some description is the best idea if you want to control connections to the machine. If you want to turn on a level of TCP/IP security on the server, you can get to it via the options of advanced properties of the IP settings for the network card(s). Turn on TCP/IP filtering with the appropriate settings. You could install a software firewall. I think you need to be really clear about what you do or don't want to let through to the server before implementation, though. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
Exactly. You've answered you own question. -Original Message- From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:04 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access If I block SMTP AND POP3 on my firewall, my exchange server will not be able to function because the exchange server which is behind my firewall needs these 2 protocols to function effectively. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:04 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject:RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Block SMTP and POP3 on your firewall then. -Original Message- From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access What I want to do is to block people from being able to telnet into either my port 25 which is the smtp port or my pop3 port 110, I am not really interested in port 23 for now. Could you please help on this Thanks -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject:Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Oluwaseyi writes; How can I block direct telnet access into my exchange 2000 server. Please any help will be highly appreciated Seyi AFAIK you can't make a telnet connection to port 23 of a vanilla 2K/exchange 2K server. You'd get connect failed or similar. I have no idea of the actual application, but I am guessing you *do* mean telnet via port 23? I would think that a firewall of some description is the best idea if you want to control connections to the machine. If you want to turn on a level of TCP/IP security on the server, you can get to it via the options of advanced properties of the IP settings for the network card(s). Turn on TCP/IP filtering with the appropriate settings. You could install a software firewall. I think you need to be really clear about what you do or don't want to let through to the server before implementation, though. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
[ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage
I've used MTRG, Denika, WUG. but none of them will do what I'm looking for. What I want isa tool that will scan/monitor a switch ( a Cisco 4006 for example) read all ports though SNMP or RMON and tell me which one has the most active then I could use the MAC address to find that workstation. Because we have a fully switched network, most sniffers don't work in a switched environment. Anyone using or have seen a tool like this? thanks,jb Jason Benway[EMAIL PROTECTED]1250 S.BeechtreeGrand Haven, MI 49417616-847-8474Fax: 616-850-1208
Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage
Try using this http://www.solarwinds.net/ there are several evaluation versions out there. Good Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/5/2002 8:08:49 AM I've used MTRG, Denika, WUG. but none of them will do what I'm looking for. What I want is a tool that will scan/monitor a switch ( a Cisco 4006 for example) read all ports though SNMP or RMON and tell me which one has the most active then I could use the MAC address to find that workstation. Because we have a fully switched network, most sniffers don't work in a switched environment. Anyone using or have seen a tool like this? thanks,jb Jason Benway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1250 S.Beechtree Grand Haven, MI 49417 616-847-8474 Fax: 616-850-1208 If you have received this confidential message in error, please destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Thank You. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
If you have clients outside the firewall that need to access mail on the exchange server, then you need to reconfigure all of those clients to use uncommon ports and map those ports through the firewall to 25,110 on your exchange server. Of course those uncommon ports will respond to a telnet, but it is less likely an occurrence. - Original Message - From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:03 AM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access If I block SMTP AND POP3 on my firewall, my exchange server will not be able to function because the exchange server which is behind my firewall needs these 2 protocols to function effectively. -Original Message- From: Andy David [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 2:04 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Block SMTP and POP3 on your firewall then. -Original Message- From: Oluwaseyi Owoeye [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 7:55 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access What I want to do is to block people from being able to telnet into either my port 25 which is the smtp port or my pop3 port 110, I am not really interested in port 23 for now. Could you please help on this Thanks -Original Message- From: Andy Grafton [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:54 PM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access Oluwaseyi writes; How can I block direct telnet access into my exchange 2000 server. Please any help will be highly appreciated Seyi AFAIK you can't make a telnet connection to port 23 of a vanilla 2K/exchange 2K server. You'd get connect failed or similar. I have no idea of the actual application, but I am guessing you *do* mean telnet via port 23? I would think that a firewall of some description is the best idea if you want to control connections to the machine. If you want to turn on a level of TCP/IP security on the server, you can get to it via the options of advanced properties of the IP settings for the network card(s). Turn on TCP/IP filtering with the appropriate settings. You could install a software firewall. I think you need to be really clear about what you do or don't want to let through to the server before implementation, though. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ -- The information contained in this email message is privileged and confidential information intended only for the use of the individual or entity to whom it is addressed. If the reader of this message is not the intended recipient, you are hereby notified that any dissemination, distribution or copy of this message is strictly prohibited. If you have received this email in error, please immediately notify Veronis Suhler Stevenson by telephone (212)935-4990, fax (212)381-8168, or email ([EMAIL PROTECTED]) and delete the message. Thank you. == List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: [ActiveDir] Blocking direct telnet access
It is a bit hopeless to try and block port 25 on a server that expects to see mail from external hosts. As the others say it is very difficult (I hesitate to say impossible, if you have enough monkeys and typewriters) to detect whether an SMTP connection comes from a telnet application or another server. If you *really* need to keep your exchange server inside the firewall from the world at large on port 25 then you might want to put a separate/proxy server in which uses port 25 to receive mail and then queues it or passes it through to your existing Exchange machine, either on another port and/or using a restriction in a firewall so only the proxy machine can make a connection on port 25 to the Exchange server. You might just be passing whatever issue you have with port 25 to the proxy machine, which would make the solution worthless, but it depands on your reasons. The only 100% solution is to unplug the network lead. bit OT, this. All the best, Andy List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage
Title: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage Sniffer Pro seems to work well on my switched network. Al -Original Message- From: RICHARD HELMS - 5535 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage Try using this http://www.solarwinds.net/ there are several evaluation versions out there. Good Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/5/2002 8:08:49 AM I've used MTRG, Denika, WUG. but none of them will do what I'm looking for. What I want is a tool that will scan/monitor a switch ( a Cisco 4006 for example) read all ports though SNMP or RMON and tell me which one has the most active then I could use the MAC address to find that workstation. Because we have a fully switched network, most sniffers don't work in a switched environment. Anyone using or have seen a tool like this? thanks,jb Jason Benway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1250 S.Beechtree Grand Haven, MI 49417 616-847-8474 Fax: 616-850-1208 If you have received this confidential message in error, please destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Thank You. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage
Title: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage I have seen sniffer pro work and I have also used solarwinds.net. Solarwinds.net will not do what you are looking for, but sniffer pro will. Justin A. Salandra, MCSE Senior Network Engineer Catholic Healthcare System 914.681.8117 office 646.483.3325 cell [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message- From: Al Garrett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:07 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage Sniffer Pro seems to work well on my switched network. Al -Original Message- From: RICHARD HELMS - 5535 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage Try using this http://www.solarwinds.net/ there are several evaluation versions out there. Good Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/5/2002 8:08:49 AM I've used MTRG, Denika, WUG. but none of them will do what I'm looking for. What I want is a tool that will scan/monitor a switch ( a Cisco 4006 for example) read all ports though SNMP or RMON and tell me which one has the most active then I could use the MAC address to find that workstation. Because we have a fully switched network, most sniffers don't work in a switched environment. Anyone using or have seen a tool like this? thanks,jb Jason Benway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1250 S.Beechtree Grand Haven, MI 49417 616-847-8474 Fax: 616-850-1208 If you have received this confidential message in error, please destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Thank You. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage
Title: Message I agree with Al we had 45 plus Cisco switches in our network and sniffer pro seems to work great. We set a port on one of our Core switches to be a forwarder and we saw all the traffic. Joshua Morgan PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 Fax: (413) 581-4936 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: Al Garrett [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:07 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage Sniffer Pro seems to work well on my switched network. Al -Original Message- From: RICHARD HELMS - 5535 [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:27 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] OT: Network bandwidth usage Try using this http://www.solarwinds.net/ there are several evaluation versions out there. Good Luck [EMAIL PROTECTED] 3/5/2002 8:08:49 AM I've used MTRG, Denika, WUG. but none of them will do what I'm looking for. What I want is a tool that will scan/monitor a switch ( a Cisco 4006 for example) read all ports though SNMP or RMON and tell me which one has the most active then I could use the MAC address to find that workstation. Because we have a fully switched network, most sniffers don't work in a switched environment. Anyone using or have seen a tool like this? thanks,jb Jason Benway [EMAIL PROTECTED] 1250 S.Beechtree Grand Haven, MI 49417 616-847-8474 Fax: 616-850-1208 If you have received this confidential message in error, please destroy it and any attachments without reading, printing, copying or forwarding it. Please let us know of the error immediately so that we can prevent it from happening again. You may reply directly to the sender of this message. Thank You. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ : http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
[ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Hi All,
I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers?
Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device?
Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world?
Thanks for you comments
Jamie Simcox
PC Network Technician
J C Bamford Excavators Ltd
___
J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.
Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP
Registered No. 561597 England
___
The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee.
If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute
this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender.
The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email
are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent
official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies ("JCB")
and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements,
representations or other binding commitment by means of Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
We are
doing this in our current environment. We are using Win2K load balance. We
have some clusters and some load balance clusters. Both work
great!
Let me
know if you would like more details
jb
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08
AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir]
Clusters - Good or Bad idea?Hi All, I am currently
specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with
about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to
cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load
balance across servers? Where I am
coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the
machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more
servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over
to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the
machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity,
we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external
device? Is this possible in a File
and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world?
Thanks for you comments
Jamie SimcoxPC Network
TechnicianJ C Bamford Excavators Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire,
England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee.If
you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distributethis
communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender.The
information, images, documents and views expressed in this Emailare
personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly
representofficial positions and policies of the J C B group of companies
("JCB")and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any
agreements,representations or other binding commitment by means of
Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Title: Message
It
sort of depends on the apps you want to cluster.
Can
you give us an idea of what you are looking at, as far as apps
go
Joshua Morgan
PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext
133 Fax: (413) 581-4936
[EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-From: England,
Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March
05, 2002 11:49 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters -
Good or Bad idea?
I am
looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or
any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced
Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can
be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced
Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand,is that it is a
more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more
monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time
is a key element we must look at here as well.
I am
interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it
will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server
machines.
Thanks,
Chris England
---
Christopher England, MCPServer Administrator
College Information Technology
Office Indiana
University
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday,
March 05, 2002 11:08 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters -
Good or Bad idea?Hi
All, I am currently specing out
a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700
users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster
machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance
across servers? Where I am
coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the
machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more
servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved
over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself
across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or
disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to
the external device? Is this
possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream
world? Thanks for you
comments Jamie SimcoxPC
Network TechnicianJ C Bamford Excavators Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire,
England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the
addressee.If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or
distributethis communication in any form but should immediately contact
the Sender.The information, images, documents and views expressed in
this Emailare personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly
representofficial positions and policies of the J C B group of companies
("JCB")and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any
agreements,representations or other binding commitment by means of
Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Title: Message
Actually the main reason my organization wants to go clustering is for
hardware redundancy (not just hard disks and power and memory, but if a MoBo
fails, we are still ok). I think it is overkill for a file server. Ideas?
Thoughts?
Chris
-Original Message-From: Morgan, Joshua
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:58
AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
It
sort of depends on the apps you want to cluster.
Can
you give us an idea of what you are looking at, as far as apps
go
Joshua
Morgan PH:
(864) 250-1350 Ext 133 Fax: (413)
581-4936 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-From: England,
Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March
05, 2002 11:49 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters -
Good or Bad idea?
I
am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering
or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure
Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new
servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about
Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand,is
that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve
and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of
us, but time is a key element we must look at here as
well.
I
am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as
it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server
machines.
Thanks,
Chris England
---
Christopher England, MCPServer Administrator
College Information Technology
Office Indiana
University
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:
Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters -
Good or Bad idea?Hi
All, I am currently specing
out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about
700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to
cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load
balance across servers? Where
I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to
the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4
or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get
moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances
itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more
storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or
more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I
living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie SimcoxPC Network TechnicianJ C Bamford
Excavators Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire,
England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the
addressee.If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose
or distributethis communication in any form but should immediately
contact the Sender.The information, images, documents and views
expressed in this Emailare personal to the Sender and do not expressly
or implicitly representofficial positions and policies of the J C B
group of companies ("JCB")and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to
make any agreements,representations or other binding commitment by
means of
Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Title: Message
You do
not necessarily have to cluster to achieve what you want. DFS is a
winderful alternative.
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday,
March 05, 2002 11:08 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good
or Bad idea?Hi
All, I am currently specing out a
number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users
(at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster
machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance
across servers? Where I am coming
from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s)
with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in
the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of
the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines.
For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can
just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external
device? Is this possible in a File
and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world?
Thanks for you comments
Jamie SimcoxPC Network
TechnicianJ C Bamford Excavators Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire,
England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee.If
you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distributethis
communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender.The
information, images, documents and views expressed in this Emailare
personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly
representofficial positions and policies of the J C B group of companies
("JCB")and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any
agreements,representations or other binding commitment by means of
Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Title: Message
Yea it
seems that your spending more money then your really need too. Using a raid 1 or
5 configuration, and some type of tape backup would be what I would do. And if
the entire server died one day I'm sure you have some type of backup server that
you could move stuff over to
-Chris
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]
On Behalf Of England, Christopher MSent: Tuesday, March 05,
2002 9:04 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject:
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Actually the main reason my organization wants to go clustering is for
hardware redundancy (not just hard disks and power and memory, but if a MoBo
fails, we are still ok). I think it is overkill for a file server. Ideas?
Thoughts?
Chris
-Original Message-From: Morgan, Joshua
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002
11:58 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
It
sort of depends on the apps you want to cluster.
Can you give us an idea of what you are looking at, as far as apps
go
Joshua
Morgan PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 Fax: (413)
581-4936 [EMAIL PROTECTED]
-Original Message-From: England,
Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday,
March 05, 2002 11:49 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters
- Good or Bad idea?
I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into
Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am
pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and
I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One
bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I
understand,is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a
higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that
is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here
as well.
I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as
well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new
server machines.
Thanks,
Chris England
---
Christopher England, MCPServer Administrator
College Information
Technology Office Indiana University
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent:
Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters -
Good or Bad idea?Hi All, I am
currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers
for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using
W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this
a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the
site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the
same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one
of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working
machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For
expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can
just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external
device? Is this possible in
a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream
world? Thanks for you
comments Jamie
SimcoxPC Network TechnicianJ C Bamford Excavators
Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester,
Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the
addressee.If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose
or distributethis communication in any form but should immediately
contact the Sender.The information, images, documents and views
expressed in this Emailare personal to the Sender and do not
expressly or implicitly representofficial positions and policies of
the J C B group of companies ("JCB")and no authority exists on
behalf of JCB to make any agreements,representations or other
binding commitment by means of
Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
We've used both the NT 4.0 WLBS and WIn2K NLBS and we
gave both up for a hardware based solution. We went with BigIP. It gave
us a better solution with more options.
Diane
-Original Message-From: Jason Benway
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:50
AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE:
[ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
We
are doing this in our current environment. We are using Win2K load
balance. We have some clusters and some load balance clusters. Both work
great!
Let
me know if you would like more details
jb
-Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
[mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08
AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject:
[ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?Hi All, I
am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for
our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K
Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good
idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the
site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same
disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the
servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines.
Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if
we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another
server to the cluster or more disk to the external device?
Is this possible in a File and Print
only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie SimcoxPC Network TechnicianJ C
Bamford Excavators Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire,
England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the
addressee.If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or
distributethis communication in any form but should immediately contact
the Sender.The information, images, documents and views expressed in
this Emailare personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly
representofficial positions and policies of the J C B group of companies
("JCB")and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any
agreements,representations or other binding commitment by means of
Email.
AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Is it a big price difference btwn. BigIP and Win2K NLBS? -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ayers, Diane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 18:09 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? We've used both the NT 4.0 WLBS and WIn2K NLBS and we gave both up for a hardware based solution. We went with BigIP. It gave us a better solution with more options. Diane -Original Message- From: Jason Benway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:50 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? We are doing this in our current environment. We are using Win2K load balance. We have some clusters and some load balance clusters. Both work great! Let me know if you would like more details jb -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Please remove me. thanks -Original Message- From: Mike Tonazzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: 05 March 2002 17:19 To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Is it a big price difference btwn. BigIP and Win2K NLBS? -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: Ayers, Diane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 18:09 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? We've used both the NT 4.0 WLBS and WIn2K NLBS and we gave both up for a hardware based solution. We went with BigIP. It gave us a better solution with more options. Diane -Original Message- From: Jason Benway [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:50 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? We are doing this in our current environment. We are using Win2K load balance. We have some clusters and some load balance clusters. Both work great! Let me know if you would like more details jb -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
I can tell you I have used NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. And it works fantastically. The only refences I needed are in the Windows 2000 Server Resource Kit. I would be happy to go into more detail if you like. -Original Message- From: Mike Tonazzi [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Title: Message This would be the consensus in the Exchange community as well. Clusters are great and all, but businesses need a positive cost-benefit analysis, and frankly, the extra few thousand could be better spent elsewhere if best practices are maintained. William Lefkovics, MCSE, A+ -Original Message-From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]]Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:09 AMTo: [EMAIL PROTECTED]Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Yea it seems that your spending more money then your really need too. Using a raid 1 or 5 configuration, and some type of tape backup would be what I would do. And if the entire server died one day I'm sure you have some type of backup server that you could move stuff over to -Chris -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of England, Christopher MSent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 9:04 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Actually the main reason my organization wants to go clustering is for hardware redundancy (not just hard disks and power and memory, but if a MoBo fails, we are still ok). I think it is overkill for a file server. Ideas? Thoughts? Chris -Original Message-From: Morgan, Joshua [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:58 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? It sort of depends on the apps you want to cluster. Can you give us an idea of what you are looking at, as far as apps go Joshua Morgan PH: (864) 250-1350 Ext 133 Fax: (413) 581-4936 [EMAIL PROTECTED] -Original Message-From: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:49 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand,is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCPServer Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message-From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AMTo: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie SimcoxPC Network TechnicianJ C Bamford Excavators Ltd___J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597 England___The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee.If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distributethis communication
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Title: Message
There
are 2 types of clusters in the Windows world, they are for very different
situations.
1.
Failover clusters, AKA Microsoft Cluster Server (MCS)
These are when you have 2 systems that share disk
resources, such as file / print servers, SQL database servers, Exchange
servers.This is when you want availability, 2 systems appear as one, you
can have each of them doing work, but they must both be capable of taking all of
the load in the event of a failure. There can be a 4 node cluster, but
only under Windows 2000 Data Center Edition.
2.
Network Load Balancing (NLB) clusters, formerly called WLBS
This solution is best used when you have a group of
servers, up to 32, that identical. Web servers are the most common.
All resources are local to the servers, "Shared nothing"
Recently Microsoft has done work to extend this model. Appcenter
Server extends this to COM servers, and the like, and adds some management
functionality.
If you
are thinking about clusters, spend a good bit of time reading on Microsoft's
site, there's a ton of stuff out there.
That's
pretty much it.
Kevin
+__+A fanatic is one
who can't change his mind and won't change the subject.Winston
ChurchillKevin M. FlanaganC/S Planning Engineer T
Systems ImplementationBranch Banking Trust3261 Atlantic Ave Suite
116Raleigh, NC 27604919-716-6209
-Original Message-From:
[EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday,
March 05, 2002 11:08 AMTo:
'[EMAIL PROTECTED]'Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good
or Bad idea?Hi
All, I am currently specing out a
number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users
(at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster
machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance
across servers? Where I am coming
from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s)
with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in
the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of
the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines.
For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can
just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external
device? Is this possible in a File
and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world?
Thanks for you comments
Jamie SimcoxPC Network
TechnicianJ C Bamford Excavators Ltd___J.
C. Bamford Excavators Ltd.Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire,
England. ST14 5JPRegistered No. 561597
England___The
contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee.If
you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distributethis
communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender.The
information, images, documents and views expressed in this Emailare
personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly
representofficial positions and policies of the J C B group of companies
("JCB")and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any
agreements,representations or other binding commitment by means of
Email.
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Oh I hate to say this cause I think I'm going to get flamed but oh well. If you want a reliable webserver farm you should look to Linux or bsd running apache. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Tonazzi Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
Re: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Love to see you running ASP on linux without spending megabucks on chillisoft! - Original Message - From: Christopher Hummert [EMAIL PROTECTED] To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 5:59 PM Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Oh I hate to say this cause I think I'm going to get flamed but oh well. If you want a reliable webserver farm you should look to Linux or bsd running apache. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Tonazzi Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Why would you get flamed for that? It certainly is an option. Slightly more difficult to incorporate applications leveraging AD, but certainly an option. If only I could get Exchange2000 Outlook Web Access on there. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Oh I hate to say this cause I think I'm going to get flamed but oh well. If you want a reliable webserver farm you should look to Linux or bsd running apache. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Tonazzi Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/ List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
The only think I'm keeping exchange around for is for our public folders. Right now I set up squirrel mail from http://www.squirrelmail.org It supports IMAP and it has a really nice web interface. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of William Lefkovics Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:22 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Why would you get flamed for that? It certainly is an option. Slightly more difficult to incorporate applications leveraging AD, but certainly an option. If only I could get Exchange2000 Outlook Web Access on there. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Oh I hate to say this cause I think I'm going to get flamed but oh well. If you want a reliable webserver farm you should look to Linux or bsd running apache. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Tonazzi Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive:
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
As far as NLB goes, it is very easy to set-up and it works wonderfully in my production web farm set-up. I'm sure Apache works as well on Linux but for people who commits to ASP like me, I'll stick with NLB. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:22 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Why would you get flamed for that? It certainly is an option. Slightly more difficult to incorporate applications leveraging AD, but certainly an option. If only I could get Exchange2000 Outlook Web Access on there. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Oh I hate to say this cause I think I'm going to get flamed but oh well. If you want a reliable webserver farm you should look to Linux or bsd running apache. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Tonazzi Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email communication are confidential to the addressee. If you are not the intended recipient you may not disclose or distribute this communication in any form but should immediately contact the Sender. The information, images, documents and views expressed in this Email are personal to the Sender and do not expressly or implicitly represent official positions and policies of the J C B group of companies (JCB) and no authority exists on behalf of JCB to make any agreements, representations or other binding commitment by means of Email. List info : http://www.activedir.org/mail_list.htm List FAQ: http://www.activedir.org/list_faq.htm List archive: http://www.mail-archive.com/activedir%40mail.activedir.org/
RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea?
Yea if your stuck it ASP I would pay for chillisoft, maybe someday a open source alternative will show up. Right now I made the switch to Linux for some of our service mainly due to cost. I have a web server and e-mail running off a old AMD K-6 233mhz and it's surprising how fast it is, and I've restarted it once in the past 4 months and that was only because I couldn't figure out how to restart an daemon. This is my first major step into Linux and it's really changed my mind about it -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of David M Ha Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 1:36 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? As far as NLB goes, it is very easy to set-up and it works wonderfully in my production web farm set-up. I'm sure Apache works as well on Linux but for people who commits to ASP like me, I'll stick with NLB. -Original Message- From: William Lefkovics [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 3:22 PM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Why would you get flamed for that? It certainly is an option. Slightly more difficult to incorporate applications leveraging AD, but certainly an option. If only I could get Exchange2000 Outlook Web Access on there. -Original Message- From: Christopher Hummert [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 10:00 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Oh I hate to say this cause I think I'm going to get flamed but oh well. If you want a reliable webserver farm you should look to Linux or bsd running apache. -Chris -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] On Behalf Of Mike Tonazzi Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 8:58 AM To: [EMAIL PROTECTED] Subject: AW: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am specially interested in NLB (network load balancing) for a webserver farm. Here is what I found on Microsoft's Website (it's a overview over Clustering and Network Load Balancing) http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business/ overview/advanced.asp http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/advancedserver/evaluation/business /overview/advanced.asp But: Is this the right platform to discuss? Aren't there other newsgroups or mailinglists more specifing concernig this issue? Mike -Ursprüngliche Nachricht- Von: England, Christopher M [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Gesendet: Dienstag, 5. März 2002 17:49 An: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Betreff: RE: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? I am looking at buying new servers as well and we are looking into Clustering or any other means of hardware and software redundancy. I am pretty sure Advanced Server does clustering as well as load balancing, and I think new servers can be brought in after the cluster is created. One bad thing about Advanced Server and clustering techniques, from what I understand, is that it is a more advanced setup and would require a higher learning curve and more monitoring and maintenance. Not that that is a concern for any of us, but time is a key element we must look at here as well. I am interested in what people have to say about this technology as well, as it will be one of the major factors when we go to buy our new server machines. Thanks, Chris England --- Christopher England, MCP Server Administrator College Information Technology Office Indiana University -Original Message- From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] Sent: Tuesday, March 05, 2002 11:08 AM To: '[EMAIL PROTECTED]' Subject: [ActiveDir] Clusters - Good or Bad idea? Hi All, I am currently specing out a number of new file and printers servers for our HQ with about 700 users (at the moment). I'm considering using W2K Advanced server to cluster machines. My first questions is, is this a good idea? Can you load balance across servers? Where I am coming from is I want the users at the site, to be able to connect to the machine(s) with one name using the same disk array. There could be 4 or more servers in the cluster, if one of the servers fails, the users get moved over to one of the working machines. Also, can it load balances itself across the machines. For expandability, if we find we need more storage or disk capacity, we can just add another server to the cluster or more disk to the external device? Is this possible in a File and Print only environment, or am I living in a dream world? Thanks for you comments Jamie Simcox PC Network Technician J C Bamford Excavators Ltd ___ J. C. Bamford Excavators Ltd. Registered Office: Rocester, Staffordshire, England. ST14 5JP Registered No. 561597 England ___ The contents of this Email
