What exactly do you mean by "add redundancy to our
NAS offerings"?
Are you worried about single point of failure and are
thinking that having two replicated NAS's would allow you to get around
that? Or are you trying to load balance because the NAS device isn't
keeping up?
If you are worrying about single point of failure, then I
would suggest increased physical redundancy (e.g things like RAID-5 &
RAID-10, multiple power sources, etc..). If you are worried about
load balancing then you solution may be more down the path of a highly
available SAN instead of NAS (multiple servers connected to the same file
system).
With 1,000,000+ files and frequent changes any solution is
going to have a difficult time replicating the data across the
network. You will end up with some type of drift between the two
file sets and that may create yet more problems.
-Stuart
"Oracle is a Tape Application"
From: Chris Flesher [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:00 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [ActiveDir] Experiences with DFS.....
We are thinking of
using DFS in order to add redundancy to our NAS offerings. My main question is
does anyone have experience using DFS to replicate/keep in sync large amounts of
info, i.e. 200+GB, between two or more servers?
As always, thank you
for the help.
Chris Flesher
The University of Chicago
NSIT/DCS
1-773-834-8477
