You're right, but you didn't really provide enough detail on your requirements or constraints to make an informed recommendation. I provided my input based on the last statement in your original e-mail.
Since you're already using DFS, and you've already considered another physical server, why not incorporate DFS Replication? That would require you have the capacity to support the data. That would avoid some of the complexities with a Windows Clustering implementation. With that said, I haven't deployed a Windows Cluster since Windows 2003 so I couldn't speak to the specific process. There are also several host based replication solutions available that can provide HA. Again, without knowing your requirement and constraints (or budget) it's tough to provide a realistic recommendation. On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 11:34 AM, Kish n Kepi <[email protected]> wrote: > Sean, thanks for your input. I’m not quite sure what your recommendation > is, though. > > > > Also, does anyone else have approaches not covered yet? Comments to pro or > con ? > > > > KNK > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sean Martin > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 8:14 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Windows File Server High-Availability > > > > Too bad, the Essentials Plus package would allow you to create a vSphere > HA cluster. That would probably provide the HA you were looking for, as > long as 100% uptime wasn't a requirement. > > > > To support clustering in a virtual environment you'd need to present the > shared disks as RDMs (Raw Device Mappings). This is typically done using > iSCSI with a software initiator on the guest OS. That would require your > SAN support iSCSI. Can also be accomplished using HBAs on the host. > > > > There is a ton of information out there on how to setup a virtual Windows > Cluster, as well as a lot of Pros/Cons that should be reviewed. > > > > I'm not sure I agree with your comments regarding the difficulty in > resizing a virtual disk, or it being any more difficult to move. Even > without features like storage vMotion, a VMDK is typically more portable > than a LUN on most storage platforms. > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:54 AM, Kish n Kepi <[email protected]> wrote: > > VMware vCenter/vSphere Essentials package (meaning 3 hosts, software > upgrades but no support) > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Sean Martin > *Sent:* Wednesday, January 14, 2015 7:52 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [NTSysADM] Windows File Server High-Availability > > > > Which virtualization product are you using? > > > > - Sean > > > > On Wed, Jan 14, 2015 at 8:41 AM, Kish n Kepi <[email protected]> wrote: > > Hello All, > > > > My boss requested that I make our File Server highly available. > > > > We currently have a physical server running Windows 2012, with shares > published using DFS. The server has large quantities of DAS, some of which > are shared primarily for IT dept use, and is connected to an 8 TB SAN which > has the main, most used, share. > > > > I know that I can go out and purchase another physical file server and > connect it to the same SAN LUN and finish the requirement. > > > > Besides acting as a file server, this server also serves WSUS and WDS. > > > > However, I’m thinking that it may make more sense to create 2 VMs on 2 > existing separate physical hosts and create a cluster . The question is how > I’d attach the SAN LUN to the virtual cluster. Would I need to create a > virtual disk on the SAN, attach it to the cluster and copy the contents of > the shares into that virtual disk? The downside of a virtual disk is that > once created, it’s difficult to resize if necessary, and unwieldy to > copy/move to a new SAN that we will certainly need to get eventually. > > > > Any input for either scenario welcome, and I certainly will embrance any > new ideas of how to accomplish this task. > > > > Kish N Kepi > > > > > > > > >
