Re: Lookong for a failsafe solution

Clustering may or may not be the way to go. Do they really need High
Availability or just say that want it? What is the true cost of down time to
the organization? Can they afford the appropriate software? What single
points of failure will they still have to deal with due to cost? 1 SAN? 1
switch?

Domain Controller automatically replicate information with each other, for
the domain, group policies, logon scripts, etc. For files shares and user
data, you can use one of several third parties tools or robocopy.

For a small company, I like the idea of a NAS device with one or more file
servers hanging off it. DFS is the way to go, if you choose this route.

If you choose a Windows Storage Server machine, you can get a copy of
Windows Server 2003 with 1 TB of storage for about $3000. Such a deal, it's
a great option.

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog

"Dan" <Dan@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx> wrote in message
news:F8946DC3-86B0-4298-9D68-F0CE5948B632@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx
> I'm looking for a failsafe solution to implement in a medium size network.
> I
> was wondering if anybody has any suggestions on implementing a windows
> 2003
> server into a peer to peer network with about 60 users. Right now there
> are
> about 60 windows 2000 and XP pro computers in a peer to peer network. We
> would like to add a windows 2003 server environment with active directory.
> We
> need the server to be absolutely failsafe. Storage needs to be about 300
> GB
> for files. I've looked into having 2 domain controllers and a SAN for
> storage
> using cluster. Does anyone have any suggestions on maybe using just 2
> domain
> controllers and having the files on those machines which would need to be
> replicated in real time, maybe using dfs. Any suggestions on how to
> accomplish this would be more than appreciated.
> Maybe there is a way of replicating the domain controllers including the
> data in real time.
> Thanks for your help


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Group Policy broke my DCs
    ... to be very careful with tweaking services on domain controllers. ... Group Policy - security policy at the OU level which makes it much easier to ... complied from the Windows 2003 Server Security guide for baseline core ... Server - automatic ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)
  • Re: Group Policy broke my DCs
    ... > need to be very careful with tweaking services on domain controllers. ... > Group Policy - security policy at the OU level which makes it much easier ... > is complied from the Windows 2003 Server Security guide for baseline core ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.group_policy)
  • Re: Installing Windows 2003 DC in a Windows 2000 Evironment-- Need Hel
    ... How to Upgrade Windows 2000 Domain Controllers to Windows Server 2003 ... Initial synchronization requirements for Windows 2000 Server and Windows ... ensure that you have designed a DNS and Active ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.active_directory)
  • Re: how much difference is between deploying a j2ee application in Z/Os and in windows?
    ... It looks that clustering and load balancing differ when we come down to implementation in Windows and zOS. ... for example we have two dual processor dell server which will run application server, we cluster application servers instance that are running on those two machines, this clustering will help us to replicate common data like sessions, timers, etc. ...
    (bit.listserv.ibm-main)
  • Re: Server 2003 and Mac OS X
    ... The issue is that a Domain Controllers running windows 2003 server has ... > It is hard make sense of all the security settings - I set all the basic ...
    (microsoft.public.windows.server.security)
Loading