"GS" <gsmsnews.microsoft.comGS@newsgroup> wrote in message
> can any tell me the pro and cons of the following
> A 2 server PC with DFS
> B. a complex one:
> two server PC, one backup minimal pc hardware with DNS and global
> one of the server PC is configured as primary dns, global catalog and
> file server
> the other one configured to run as hyperv server with enough server VMs
> to acts cluster
> we are getting two proposal from two different groups, each arguing their
> soln is best
> I can see the benefit of DFS and simplicity of the DFS and can be
> with a low power PC for backup DNS to make it even more fault tolerant
DFS offers redundancy on multiple servers in multiple Active Directory
Sites. A cluster, whether VM or not, if basically a one-Site setup. With
DFS, users will be directed to their own Site for the data, whereas with
clustering, it is only on one site, and if you have multiple locations, the
WAN link will be saturated with requests to the site that the cluster is
Going further, setting it up as a DC with DNS, etc, complicates the matter.
If you need additional DCs, and keep in mind, a minimal of two DCs are
recommened (which should state 'required') for each domain, depend on if you
need additional DCs. As far as the DC being a GC, it is recommended wtih a
single domain/forest, that ALL DCs are GCs. If in a multiple domain forest,
with a minimal of two DCs per domain, one Dc can be the GC, but the
Infrastructure Master role must be moved off the GC to the other DC.
The cons are if you make this file server an additional DCs, the recovery of
such a machine is more complicated than a simple file server. VMs are nice,
as well, but I've found for a file server with lots of data with multiple
users accessing it, that a physical machine is better warranted. In my own
personal experience and opinion, I've found VMs good for DCs and other lower
horsepower requirement type services to be of benefit, but when it comes to
being a file sharing machine, SQL, Exchange, etc, anything that needs
horsepower and lots of network traffic, a physical machine works better.
And making it another DNS server doesn't necessarily make it fault tolerant.
There are pros and cons to this. Mostly it depends on the client side
resolver service. For if one DC goes down, and the client already has that
DC's hostname cached, it will not look for another one. The issues with
Exchange and Outlook are more complex in such a scenario, too. So it really
depends on what you mean by "fault tolerance" in this respect.
This posting is provided "AS-IS" with no warranties or guarantees and
confers no rights.
Please reply back to the newsgroup or forum for collaboration benefit among
responding engineers, and to help others benefit from your resolution.
Ace Fekay, MCT, MCITP EA, MCTS Windows 2008 & Exchange 2007, MCSE & MCSA
2003/2000, MCSA Messaging 2003
Microsoft Certified Trainer
For urgent issues, please contact Microsoft PSS directly. Please check http://support.microsoft.com
for regional support phone numbers.