Jon Harris <[email protected]> wrote on 08/28/2009 12:29:07 PM: > I don't know but I think DFS in 2000 was pretty poorly done, 2003 > was better and I hear the 2008 fixed a lot of things so he may have > issues with DFS. That is assuming he is still running all of his > file servers on 2000, he does not say.
4 file servers are Win2003; one is still Win2000. That one is scheduled to be upgraded to Win2003 in a couple months. We are also going to be going to 2003 AD later this year. (and 2008 AD next year) So at some soon-to-be furute point, I will have 5 file servers, all at 2003 AD, scattered about, all in a 2003 AD. If I do implement DFS, it would be after all that. I guess I'm still unclear about the replication aspects of DFS. I get the idea that I wouldn't need (num of servers x amount of each server storage) at each site, but I am struggling to understand then how I am cutting out bandwidth. I can see where I might be reducing it, but: If a person moves from Server #1 to Server #2, and I am using DFS, how (what method occurs) does that user not be accessing his/her files over the WAN link, if I am not replicating all their files to Server #2? I suppose that is my fundamental knowledge block, at the moment. ~ Finally, powerful endpoint security that ISN'T a resource hog! ~ ~ <http://www.sunbeltsoftware.com/Business/VIPRE-Enterprise/> ~
