Actually, I forgot to consider that and it is a good reason to not go with Offline Files. I think it probably should only be used for single-user data, such as home folders.
*From:* [email protected] [mailto: [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 3:46 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* RE: [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover I'd rather not go that route, particularly what comes to mind is user A makes some changes t Doc 1, then user B needs to review / edit Doc 1-, then they start emailing it to eachother, or usb etc.. that's is why I'd rather just supply them a "device" for a couple of hundred dollars and be done with it- their total data (soup to nuts) is under 100gb I'm thinking at this point maybe some network based enclosure and schedule a robocopy every 30 minutes? On that note, i;ve been robocopying forever, anything newer/better out there? Jean-Paul Natola ------------------------------ From: [email protected] Date: Thu, 10 Jul 2014 14:33:55 -0400 Subject: RE: [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover To: [email protected] I guess an obvious answer would be to use Offline Files, if the workstations have the space to store the cached files. If you go with that you should choose the option to encrypt the offline files on the workstations. Also, I’ve learned not to use an alias for the file server or to have DNS and NetBIOS names that differ from each other, though I doubt you would have that problem in such a small office. (If more than one name is used, Offline Files will probably see the names as different servers.) It’s not completely without problems, mostly involving the time it takes to sync, but it seems to be much better on newer versions of Windows than on Windows 2000 and XP. *From:* [email protected] [mailto: [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *J- P *Sent:* Thursday, July 10, 2014 2:16 PM *To:* [email protected] *Subject:* [NTSysADM] cost-effective storage failover Hi all, For a small office (10 users) , i want to have a secondary storage device that syncs with server share, so that in the event the the server goes down (power supply goes, memory failure etc..), they can continue to work till the server comes back online. They are too small to justify the expense of second physical server, any thoughts? thanks
