Re: Anycast and windows servers

[Steve Francis]

Given your initial question was, I think, about the OSPF implementation 
on windows - I used it on NT 4.0, when it was part of the routing and 
remote access option, to implement fault tolerant routing through some 
windows based firewalls.
It worked fine then. So long as you minimize the services running on the 
windows box, it was stable enough.
Have not used window servers since NT 4.0, but I don't imagine its 
gotten worse.

Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:

Depending on the service being provided, Microsoft
has their own clustering solution which will
perform failover.  Sometimes choosing full vendor
supported technologies is the easiest path.
With Windows 2003 Server they even support
geographically disperses failover.  Info at:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/technologies/clustering/default.asp
Gary

 

-----Original Message-----
From: Daniel Senie [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]
Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 6:39 AM
To: Sean Donelan
Cc: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: Re: Anycast and windows servers


At 05:43 AM 2/20/2004, you wrote:

   

On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:
     

Honestly, I do not know about OSPF (or BGP) on Windows, 
       

however, you
   

can just static route to the Windows box(es).  Sure, if 
       

the OS hangs,
   

the interface will stay up and the static route will 
       

still push bits at
   

the dead box, but it will work (FSVO "work").

Besides, how often does Windows crash? <snicker>
       

Hence the reason why I want the route to cease being 
     

advertised if the box
   

"fails."
     

Connect the server(s) to APC MasterSwitch or equivalent 
hardware. Monitor 
the server box(es) for responsiveness. If/when it fails, the 
monitoring 
station can instruct the MasterSwitch to reboot (power cycle, 
really) the 
box. Stuff is pretty inexpensive (certainly less so than load 
balancers).

   

I'm trying to avoid putting yet another server load balancer 
     

box in front
   

of the windows box to withdraw the route so a different 
     

"working" box will
   

be closest.  It may be an oxymoron, but I'm trying to make 
     

the windows
   

service (if not a particular windows box) as "reliable" as possible
without introducing more boxes than necessary.
     

My initial thought last night was in fact the use of load 
balancers. But 
then you need to think about redundant load balancers and so on.