File Server Cluster with data center SAN

[gmail2]

Hi all

I've never had the opportunity to play around with clustering in the past. We currently have a file server at our head office and one at our data center. The 2 servers replicate using DFS but they're fast running out of space.

We're now looking at implementing a SAN which we hope will see is through our storage needs for the next few years. We still need to have failover available so that if the file server at the head office fails, the one at the DC can take over.

My knowledge of clustering is rather limited I'm afraid - can I cluster 2 servers (one at each location) and have each one attached to a SAN ? Or do I need to use DFS for this ? Or are there any 3rd party products that I should be looking at ?

Thanks in advance

Irish Poetry - Karen O'Connor
Irish Poetry and Short Stories - Doghouse Books
Garten und Landschaftsbau

 

[TechyMcSe2k]

If the sites are physically seperate, then two SAN's are needed and you cannot cluster. You can use DFS to replicate between the two to prevent down time. The DFS of course will make users totally unaware of the physical location of their data.

_______________________________________
Great knowledge can be obtained by mastering the Google algorithm.

 

[gmail2]

Thanks for the reply. Can I ask why the servers can't be clustered ? Is it because a cluster requires a shared storage area ? I've heard that Exchange can be clustered without a shared storage ares - I guess this is different to a file server ?

What about Microsoft Storage Server - can this meet my requirements ? Of is DFS the only option ?



Irish Poetry - Karen O'Connor
Irish Poetry and Short Stories - Doghouse Books
Garten und Landschaftsbau

 

[58sniper]

You don't do clustering across a site, generally. There's too much latency in the connection, and that will cause the cluster to fail back and forth. Plus, in most instances, the two nodes need to be in the same AD site.

DFS is a fabulous feature, and well worth looking into.

Pat Richard MVP
Plan for performance, and capacity takes care of itself. Plan for capacity, and suffer poor performance.

http://www.ucblogs.net/blogs/exchange/

 

[TechyMcSe2k]

And Exchange 2007 does have CCR, but that is not the same a file clustering.

_______________________________________
Great knowledge can be obtained by mastering the Google algorithm.

 

[pagy]

For clustering over separate geographic sites you would have to use a majority node set cluster as opposed to a quorum model. This requires specialist hardware so DFS is probably going to be your best bet. If you want to read up on majority node set clusters;

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/280743

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc757010.aspx

Paul
MCTS: Exchange 2007, Configuration
MCSA:2003
MCSE:2003
MCITP:Enterprise Administrator

If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions?
Scott Adams

 

[gmail2]

Hi Guys, thanks for all the replies, much appreciated. One more question - if I go for a SAN option, are there any advantages to using Windows Storage Server as opposed to attaching a SAN to a traditional Standard Server 2003 machine ?

From a support point of view (post implementation) am I more dependant on the OEM vendor for support than if I implement a "regular" server ? Can it be patched in the same way as a "regular" server or do patches have to be released separately by the OEM vendor ?

Or is this a question for another forum ?

Thanks again for all your help, much appreciated

Irish Poetry - Karen O'Connor
Irish Poetry and Short Stories - Doghouse Books
Garten und Landschaftsbau

 

[TechyMcSe2k]

Server 2003 R2 has some SAN management available and even a File Server Management and the improved DFS Console.

I do not see the need for Storage Server...but I may be trumped by others here.

http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773240(WS.10).aspx

_______________________________________
Great knowledge can be obtained by mastering the Google algorithm.