Comments on: Network RAID using Windows 2003 Server?

Question: Network RAID using Windows 2003 Server?

Ziggy Zaga — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:26:50 -0800

I have two workstations running Windows Server 2003 Enterprise that function as a PDC/BDC, with the PDC also functioning as a file server. Is there any way I can set up a sort of "network RAID" where the BDC will also act as a file server that continually mirrors the files on the PDC?

The goal here is redundancy and availability; I realize synchronization over ethernet will not be anywhere near as fast as any hardware/software RAID implementation...I cannot do RAID at all on either because the workstations will not accommodate more than one drive apiece.

Yes, I am aware:
- hardware NAS solutions exist,
- Windows Storage Server 2003 exists,
- and many Linux software NAS options exist,

...but since this is not an enterprise-level endeavor I'm trying to make do with what I have-- two Win2K3 servers and an ethernet infrastructure.

Can this be done?

Thanks

By: Blazecock Pileon

Blazecock Pileon — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 20:28:51 -0800

rsync

By: phrayzee

phrayzee — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 21:35:13 -0800

I do believe that Robocopy can be setup to watch for changes and also mirror file structures.

By: icebourg

icebourg — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 22:46:58 -0800

I think DFS is more along the lines of what you want. I have heard it can be kind of tricky to set up, but it should provide you the ability to have both servers act as backup file servers to one another. Replication ensures they're both always on the same page.

By: dhoe

dhoe — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:04:11 -0800

Just a nitpick, but are you sure they function as PDC/BDC? I'm asking because that term refers to NT domains.

By: bxg

bxg — Fri, 11 Apr 2008 23:46:55 -0800

Seconding DFS; do it with a domain-based DFS. Read up and understand the pros/cons of this configuration. Make sure any clients can properly connect to DFS (ie most Windows clients work fine with it, not sure of the behavior of Mac/Linux client).

By: StandardObfuscatingProcedure

StandardObfuscatingProcedure — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 04:45:27 -0800

DFS is useful for some things, but keep in mind:

1- DFS will NOT replicate open files, so if you are running any DBs or other files that stay open for a long period of time, this is not a good solution.

2- You MUST have a working AD domain, which, given your reference to PDC and BDC, you either don't have or don't understand.

3- DFS is designed to be used over a WAN, and runs and algorithm called RDC (Remote Differential Compression) by default. If you are using this on a LAN, be sure to turn this off or you will take a huge performance hit. RTFM on how to do this.

Question- in this day and age, what workstation will only accept ONE drive? I'd favor even a cheapo RAID solution over using DFS. Even a mirror will get you better performance on read/write times...

By: odinsdream

odinsdream — Sat, 12 Apr 2008 05:47:42 -0800

You definitely have bigger problems not using RAID. Are you saying they cannot physically accommodate more than one hard drive?

By: Ziggy Zaga

Ziggy Zaga — Sun, 13 Apr 2008 09:44:13 -0800

Question- in this day and age, what workstation will only accept ONE drive? I'd favor even a cheapo RAID solution over using DFS. Even a mirror will get you better performance on read/write times...
posted by StandardObfuscatingProcedure at 7:45 AM on April 12

You definitely have bigger problems not using RAID. Are you saying they cannot physically accommodate more than one hard drive?
posted by odinsdream at 8:47 AM on April 12

The workstations in question are Dell Optiplex Gx-somethings. Each one is the size of an Xbox 360 and only holds one drive. They weren't really meant to be servers but their size made them ideal for the locations I ended up installing them.

Just a nitpick, but are you sure they function as PDC/BDC? I'm asking because that term refers to NT domains.
posted by dhoe at 2:04 AM on April 12 [mark as best answer] [+] [!]

Technically speaking, I guess they are not necessarily a "PDC/BDC" but I refer to them as such because the "PDC" has more functions than just being a domain controller, whereas the only thing my "BDC" does is being a domain controller. It's more for my own ease of memory than anything; sorry for the confusion.

Thanks for all the advice; I will look into DFS (I knew something like that existed but couldn't remember what it was called or used for) and if that doesn't work out then I'll probably resort to rsyncing every hour or something.