you can pound on FRS as much as you want, it's definitely
gotten better over time and is suitable for what it was meant to
do. Don't forget it's a replacement for the NT replicator, mainly
used to replicate small more-or less static files used during logon and GPOs.
However, by now it will even do quite well with large files, if these are very
static as well (nope, not PSTs) - but it's certainly not meant for sizes like
the one being discussed. Not to say I'm fully happy with FRS, but if you
know its limitations, you can use it for your benefit - and you need to get
to know it in detail anyways, as managing / troubleshooing replication of
SYSVOL requires it. But don't think it
will replace other much more efficient file-replication tools out
there.
I full agree with Stuart on this particular situation - why
use DFS/FRS at all in this situation? should think about HW redundancy
solutions here...
/Guido
P.S.: FRS will even replicate files when an ACE changes on
a file - even if the file-content remains the same. This is an easy way to cause
some unwanted FRS replication...
From: Ayers, Diane [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Donnerstag, 11. M�rz 2004 18:50
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Experiences with DFS.....
Yes. FRS today would trigger the
replication of the entire file with a change to that file. There are also
issues with open files. You coulod configure a less frequent replication
schedule but...
Diane
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Chris Flesher
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 9:32 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Experiences with DFS.....
Well,
to give a little more info, we have 1,000,000+ files on our NAS. This machine is
accessed pretty hard by ~1,000 users, housing .pst files and eudora data store
files. If you are saying that each time there is a change in a file, it is
replicated, would it constantly replicate email data files each time an email
comes to the user? That could get ugly.
-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of Ayers, Diane
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 10:52 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: RE: [ActiveDir] Experiences with DFS.....We looked at a DFS / FRS combo and quickly rejected it based on the problems with FRS. For data replication, FRS is a PoS (to be brutally honest). MS needs to start from scrtach on that one. Any efficient data replication scheme would utilize a block level or some other low level replication process and not be based on file level replication. A single change to, say a 10 MB file, should not trigger the replication of the entire 10 MB file.We're looking at several third party replication tools but the jury is still out on the optimal solution.Diane-----Original Message-----
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]On Behalf Of Brent Westmoreland
Sent: Thursday, March 11, 2004 8:25 AM
To: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: [ActiveDir] Experiences with DFS.....Yes,
You need to become familiar with the FRS registry settings and the staging directory. Try these links to get you started:
http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBI/tip4100/rh4104.htm
http://www.jsiinc.com/SUBL/tip5900/rh5973.htm
Also,
definitely consider moving your staging directory to a large volume follow the instructions in KB291823.
On Mar 11, 2004, at 11:00 AM, Chris Flesher wrote:
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 FlesherThe University of ChicagoNSIT/DCS1-773-834-8477Brent WestmorelandBMW Group - Data Center AmericasBusiness: 864.989.6567
