Re: Not sure if DFS or Server File Clustering is best solution for TIBCO design
- From: "daveberm" <david.bermingham@xxxxxxxxxxxx>
- Date: 11 Aug 2006 14:04:08 -0700
Your are correct that DFS is no good for databases. You need a
cluster. Traditional MSCS clusters require shared storage and hardware
that appears of the Cluster
HCL...http://support.microsoft.com/kb/309395/
There are third-party alternatives out there, including the company I
work for, that will provide functionality similar to MSCS but do not
require shared storage and do not require cluster certified hardware.
In place of shared storage, LifeKeeper uses host based real-time
replication to keep the files and databases in sync and available for
automatic failover in case of a disaster. Check us out at
www.steeleye.com and let me know if you have any additional questions.
David A. Bermingham
MCSE, MCSA:Messaging
www.steeleye.com
CHolmen@xxxxxxxxx wrote:
Any assistance with this is much appreciated.
Here is what we want to do, we want complete redundancy with minimal
downtime on server file information.
When 1 server writes file information we want that information
available on a second server immediately if the first server goes down.
Our initial thinking was to use DFS R2 and create namespaces for the 2
servers. We are now thinking that this will not be a solution because
we are unsure about file locks. If a database is constantly open, will
it replicate the changes immediately, or will it wait for it to close?
We are now thinking that Clustered File servers will be the best
solution. Obviously this is a more expensive solution, considering
enterprise versions of OS, and etc.
Thanks in advance.
.
- References:
- Prev by Date: MSCS Cluster with HP MSA1510i - iSCSI Cluster
- Next by Date: Re: MSCS Cluster with HP MSA1510i - iSCSI Cluster
- Previous by thread: Not sure if DFS or Server File Clustering is best solution for TIBCO design
- Next by thread: Application Popup Error
- Index(es):
Relevant Pages
|
