I would second the thoughts of the person who said that you should have done more research before buying hardware. You can get other solutions than an MS Cluster. The Microsoft Clustering solutions are just OK, there are better things if you just want a file server that NEVER goes down.
http://www.stratus.com/news/2001/20011029.htm Stratus makes systems for places like the New York Stock Exchange, they make their living out of making a product that just never goes down. Real Fault Tolerant systems run for years without a reboot, some for more than 10 years. They now have a Windows 2000 based solution. If you want to build a cluster, that's fine, I've build a few, they are good, but not Fault Tolerant. I think that the most gain you can get is from stabilizing your regular file servers, and fixing the processes and procedures. If you let folks do stuff without adequate testing there will be down time, regardless of the technology. At my last job we had file servers that would get restarted about 1 time per quarter, almost always scheduled, after 10 PM, that was our SLA, we could take it if we wanted to from 10PM to 6 AM, but we didn't. Work on your system build procedures, and when you have a system up and solid DON'T CHANGE IT. The gains of fixing processes and procedures will pay off on all servers, not just this file server. Kevin > -----Original Message----- > From: Lars Norman S�ndergaard [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Friday, October 26, 2001 10:34 AM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Building a Redundant System > > > Eric, > > Basically you should look at the business problem you are > trying to solve. Since you have attached the both machines to > the SAN you are obviously looking for a cluster (which I > think is a great idea). For the discussion on running Dfs, > Active/Active or Active/Passive you have to consider the > logical structure of your data. If you basically need one > large share that is not easily partitioned into smaller > shares then an active/passive cluster configuration is nice > and the servers you are using can easily handle this. > > If your data is on multiple shares then build an > active/active cluster. > > I would however recommend that you DO NOT use the same > cluster for print services. In my experience you need to > reboot the print server more often than the file server and I > have often been told horror stories of printing clusters > where a print job is still stuck after failover. > > Remember to buy redundant power-supplies and configure > teaming for the network connections. You may want to look > into gigabit connections. > > Lars > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: 26. oktober 2001 14:10 > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Building a Redundant System > > > I have the hardware to build this redundant system. I have > an idea of > what technologies to use. I just want to see if anyone had > any pros or > cons for one technology or another.. > > Wes, do you run any clusters? > > Eric Sabo > NT Administrator > Computing Services Center > California University of Pennsylvania > > > -----Original Message----- > From: Wes Owen [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 5:00 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: RE: Building a Redundant System > > > Shouldn't you have answered those questions before you spent > all the money? > > A lot of money spent just for file and print. > > First question to ask. > > Can one of the servers handle all the load? If, yes I would > think active-passive clustering would be best. > > -----Original Message----- > From: Sabo, Eric [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED]] > Sent: Thursday, October 25, 2001 3:56 PM > To: NT 2000 Discussions > Subject: Building a Redundant System > > > I am searching for some suggestions about building a > redundant system. I have already purchased a Compaq SAN > (MA6000) and two servers (DL580) > to attach to this SAN. My objective is to build file and > print system > that will have some fail over between the two systems. > > On these servers I will be running Windows 2000 Advanced OS. > > I guess my question here what is the best method to use. > > Should I go with an active-active with load balancing > cluster? Or with DFS? Or will this be a combination of both? > > > > Eric Sabo > NT Administrator > Computing Services Center > California University of Pennsylvania > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > This e-mail and any files transmitted with it are > confidential and are intended solely for the use of the > individual or entity to whom they are addressed. If you are > NOT the intended recipient or the person responsible for > delivering the e-mail to the intended recipient, be advised > that you have received this e-mail in error and that any use, > dissemination, forwarding, printing, or copying of this > e-mail is strictly prohibited. > > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > > ------ > You are subscribed as [EMAIL PROTECTED] > Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp > To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED] > ------ You are subscribed as [email protected] Archives: http://www.swynk.com/sitesearch/search.asp To unsubscribe send a blank email to [EMAIL PROTECTED]
