Need feedback about DFS design

hi all,

i designing new environment. use 2 storage servers each connected disk array. let's name them srv1 , srv2. on 1 server put our data, backups, files , on. want sync these data svr1 svr2. colleague proposed check if dfs can us. servers 2008 r2 standard.

i found limitations of dfs @ http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc773238%28ws.10%29.aspx#bkmk_00

we use files (images) close 64gb. thinking place image files 1 server , use sync tool or robocopy mirror script sync data bewteen both servers , use dfs other files. other files files used users every day.

please let me know guys think of this. or have other ideas. or know why dfs not use this.

bastiaan

hi bastiaan,

given you'll using server 2008 r2, you'll using dfsr instead of older dfs. 1 of important differences fdsr replicates parts of file have changed - important consideration if you're working 64gb files.

you can read little blurb dfsr here.

one tip may want blow out default 4gb staging directory allocation between 10gb , 20gb if you're regularly working files large , if large number of changes occurring within files.

dfsr replication groups can set run in 2 modes: file backup , namespace publishing. you've described far, doesn't sound need namespace publishing component recommend former.

lastly, link you've provided dfs , not dfsr, please disregard information there's lot of key differences in mechanics between 2 these days.

cheers,
lain

Windows Server  >  File Services and Storage