Availl Replication V.S. Windows 2K FRS

[Eddiefdz]

Hello Fellas,

I have a question for you gurus. I recently began using File replication service from Windows 2000 Server and it seems to work great. I have all my DFS links setup and a replica of each of my shares on another server. Now i have noticed that people talk about all these different replication softwares outthere such as Availl, etc. Can anyone tell me what i could get out of a replication software such as that, which i may not be able to get out of Windows 2000. Maybe its the way that they replicate? I am not sure, but for you guys out there that have had more experience with this please let me know. I want to make sure that i am running the right software.

Thanks for your help.




Eddie Fernandez
CCNA, Network+, A+, MCP

 

[TecSup9]

I am from Availl - up front.
Here is what is better; issues with FRS:
Not Bidirectional. One way only.
No compression of the transfers
No Diffs. These are full files.
No intelligent restart for a bad transmission.
No throttling - bogs the network.
Not latest versions - 3 second minimum delay.
Move on close only. If a file changes often but does not close, there is no transfer.
No file coherence, two people can open at once: multiple changes many versions.
Replication is meant to distribute files only.
So a better architecture would be to use DFS as a single presentation, and use Availl for the multiple location redirect points to the actual file once a DFS access is done. But if you use Availl, then the single presentation problem is done too.