Clustering isn't that complicated, working on a few SQL 2005 clusters now, and I have clustered SQL 2000, Exchange 2003, File services, etc etc.
Next trick I really would like to do with Windows Clustering is Geographical Clustering for site-to-site HA. Z Edward E. Ziots Network Engineer Lifespan Organization MCSE,MCSA,MCP,Security+,Network+,CCA Phone: 401-639-3505 -----Original Message----- From: Steven Peck [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 1:53 PM To: NT System Admin Issues Subject: Re: Cluster, virtual servers, or traditional? Clustering also complicates your life but is 'neat' to have on the resume :) Whether it is a business requirement or not really depends on your business needs and the applications you are running. Steven On Wed, Mar 26, 2008 at 7:42 AM, Russ Clark <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > > > > This is something we did last year and are still implementing. We ended up > getting an iSCSI SAN and I currently have a two node cluster that is also > hosting MS virtual servers with all the data sitting in the SAN. This > worked for us as we also needed to replace quite a bit of our hardware and I > was able to shut down quite a few older servers and move them onto two new > clustered servers. > > Clustering is included with the Enterprise and above version of server > 2003/2008, but you would need to purchase two server licenses. Clustering > requires some type of shared storage. > > > Russ Clark > > ________________________________ > > > From: Mike Semon [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:31 AM > > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: RE: Cluster, virtual servers, or traditional? > > > > > > You might look at iSCSI or NAS solutions for storage if you do not need the > performance of a Fibre Channel SAN. There is a big cost saving and in the > right environment they work great. Virtualization such as VMware will be of > benefit if you want to consolidate servers. If you have a bunch of servers > that run at 10-15 % utilization then it makes sense to virtualize them. Also > easy to deploy new servers from templates which saves lots of time. If you > have small number of servers which have heavy utilization then stick with > traditional hardware. > > Mike > > ________________________________ > > > From: Tom Miller [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: Wednesday, March 26, 2008 8:05 AM > To: NT System Admin Issues > Subject: Cluster, virtual servers, or traditional? > > > > > Hi Folks: > > > > > > Over the next year I'll be replacing/moving around most of my servers here > at HQ. Currently I have "traditional" hardware servers. I'm wondering at > what point to I need to move, if at all, to clustering/SAN/virtual servers. > At my regional sites (all 50 staff or less) the model will remain a > traditional server hardware. However here at HQ (6 buildings) I am not so > sure. I have about 400 staff members here using several servers for e-mail > and file and print, as well as the typical variety of utility, web, and so > on servers. None of the servers consume a huge amount of disk space for > files or for e-mail (fairly stringent disk space quotas for e-mail). > > > > > > Suggestions? I'll be moving to Windows 2008, and I thought I read that you > can cluster 2 servers without additional licenses. I'm not sure about SANs, > since that my be overkill here, and I haven't done anything with > virtualization yet (other than desktop). > > > > > > Reliability is important, but so is cost. Being a non-profit, I don't have > lots of funds for extra hardware unless I can justify it. > > > > > > Comments and suggestions appreciated. > > > > > > > > > > > > > > Tom Miller > Engineer, Information Technology > Hampton-Newport News Community Services Board > 757-788-0528 > > Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail message, including attachments, is for > the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may contain confidential and > privileged information. Any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, or > distribution is prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient, please > contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy all copies of the original > message. > > > > > > > > > > > > ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~ ~ Upgrade to Next Generation Antispam/Antivirus with Ninja! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbelt-software.com/SunbeltMessagingNinja.cfm> ~
