Before topolgy, plan for redundancy first.
a) if use windows 2003 r2, make sure u use windows 2003 ENTERPRISE r2 so as
to have namespace server redudancy.
b) for topology, it depends what you wish to do. Will there be a central
site that pushes updates to the rest of the machines ?
"Pat" <> wrote in message
news:e050538f-a2cc-42f2-9937-...
> Hello,
>
> I am looking into implementing a DFS Replication setup for a system I
> administer. Depending on the time of the year, I would have as little
> as 3 and as much as 9 servers needing to have about 600GB (currently,
> will grow) of data replicated between them all. As it stands right
> now, changes to the files can occur on any server so there wouldn't be
> any authoritative node that would have all changes made on it. The
> files needing replicated can be anywhere from 5KB to 7GB.
>
> My question is what would be the most reliable and best performance
> way to setting up the replication connections? Would it be best to go
> with a full mesh topology where all all members replicate to each
> other. Or would be better to have each member replication to two or
> three other members, making sort of a circular topology but setup in a
> way where no single member could would break the replication.
>
> Thanks,
> Pat
|
Similar Threads
Linear Mode
