IIS FTP Cluster over MS Failover Cluster 2008

I have created a failover cluster using Microsoft Windows 2008 x64 on two nodes.
also configured quorum with disk and node majority. After that i have configured IIS FTP cluster using Microsoft KB article 974603.
My basic need to setup this environment is to give high availability to my FTP users. if any 1 node goes down the process of FTP should not stop and files needs to continue write on the FTP server. The read/write process is involved which makes me to use Microsoft Failover cluster as best described by Microsoft that when ever IIS FTP write is involved.
After setting all this my cluster works fine when i tested it and if i shutdown 1 node. Users can made FTP connection to my FTP server. But the problem where i have been stuck is that the session which is already made and file copy is in process and during that process i shut down 1 node the FTP file copy process terminated without completing the transfer.

Any 1 have any idea to resolve this issue.
Who is Participating?
Ted BouskillSenior Software DeveloperCommented:
Could you provide the URL?  I think they are discussing asynchronous read/write to a file or files.  In a SQL DB multiple people are read writing to the file on disk concurrently.

FTP is only for transferring files.  There is no concurrent read/write access to a file.  It's either being uploaded or downloaded.  That's it.

Even the URL your provided http://support.microsoft.com/kb/974603 states that you should consider NLB instead.

ptmlAuthor Commented:
basically what i understand is i need to set up active + active cluster ?
is that sooo ?
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/974603 <<< link to set up IIS FTP Cluster.

Ted BouskillSenior Software DeveloperCommented:
In clustered systems any running transaction is always terminated.  For example, I use an Active/Active SQL cluster for a Sharepoint farm.   If one server fails over, the other server will take over, however any transactions in process are lost.

I'm assuming you realize that clustering doesn't provide load balancing and is only for high availability.  So in my Active/Active scenario I'm actually running two instances of SQL on each system.  Each system is the backup for the other system so if one system goes offline, the other system runs both instances of SQL.

FTP is quite stable, I'm not sure why you want HA clustering for it if it does kill a running transaction.  Why don't you use Network Load Balancing to spread the load and use affinity to keep each session on the server it started on.  If you need to install updates or fix one node in NLB it still will failover at the OS level which would be fine with FTP.

Even your link mentions NLB as possibly a better choice.
Simplify Active Directory Administration

Administration of Active Directory does not have to be hard.  Too often what should be a simple task is made more difficult than it needs to be.The solution?  Hyena from SystemTools Software.  With ease-of-use as well as powerful importing and bulk updating capabilities.

Don't use failover cluster for IIS services. It is really not worth it. Although it can be done it is rarely done in the real world.

NLB is teh better choice here (ARR may be suitable too) or better still a hardware load balancer.
Ted BouskillSenior Software DeveloperCommented:
Agreed.  Considering that a web application spread over multiple servers is an exact copy if there is a design flaw it will affect ALL servers not just one, which means failover isn't going to help.  If it's a hardware problem then NLB is sufficient to take one server offline without downtime and minimal interruption to the users.

Having copies of a web application on multiple servers is sufficient redundance.  Products like SQL allow only one instance to run on a single server.  IIS or FTP doesn't have that limitation.
ptmlAuthor Commented:
NLB is a better choise when only read is required on FTP service.
In my case read/write is required and as per Microsoft best practices they have written that on their support website that always use failover cluster whenever Read/Wrtie is required.
I suppose you are referring to a link like this:


To me there is not much information there. I also would take some of these not tested much solutions in the real world in technet articles with a pinch of salt. They often state how it is possible not why you shouldn't do it.

NLB is used for IIS not clustering. I wish Microsoft would remove references for clustering for IIS as I don't really understand the need for it. A load balanced rather than a clustered solution for me always is the best option.

I have been in this game along time and I don't know anyone that has done clustered IIS services. More so everyone doesn't recommend it. You will find no support for it here or forums.iis.net or the IIS newsgroups from the MS staff or experts in the field.
ptmlAuthor Commented:
Question has a verified solution.

Are you are experiencing a similar issue? Get a personalized answer when you ask a related question.

Have a better answer? Share it in a comment.

All Courses

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.