Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- From: Adam Przestroga <aprzestroga@xxxxx>
- Date: Mon, 08 Jun 2009 19:17:50 -0400
Tom Moreau wrote:
If you want redundancy, then why are you moving it off of the cluster? That said, have you looked at DFS?
I would like to move it off the cluster for several reasons, but the most importantly because whenever I need to do something with my SQL server, it impacts my file share resource groups, as well.
What I would like to know is what technologies are there that would allow me to "expose" my shared drive in a fashion similar to clustered file share. What I mean by that is in clustered file share the share is exposed on the network as "virtual server\share name" under single IP address. If I understand DFS correctly, you would end-up with two synchronized file shares server_A\share_x and server_B\share_x. Am I getting this correctly?
Thanks,
APrzestroga
.
- Follow-Ups:
- Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- From: Tom Moreau
- Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- References:
- Replacement for a clustered file share
- From: Adam Przestroga
- Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- From: Tom Moreau
- Replacement for a clustered file share
- Prev by Date: RE: Missing "SQL Server" & SQL "Server Agent" Resource after installat
- Next by Date: Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- Previous by thread: Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- Next by thread: Re: Replacement for a clustered file share
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|