Managing Active Directory can get complicated. Often, the native tools for managing AD are just not up to the task. The largest Active Directory installations in the world have relied on one tool to manage their day-to-day administration tasks: Hyena. Start your trial today.
Solved
Move from Windows 2003 file share cluster to 2012 DFS Cluster
Posted on 2013-01-07
My company currently has a Windows 2003 active/passive file cluster. All share are controlled by the cluster and the volumes reside on our SAN. We are looking to upgrade our file servers and cluster to 2012 and implement DFS to have one name space.. Here are my questions.
1) If we were to implement a 2012 member server DFS would be do it in the following order:
a) Update Windows 2008 scheme
b) Create Windows 2012 active / passive cluster
c) install 2012 A.D based DFS
2) If we moved to a single DFS name space how would be move all of our share from our 2003 file server cluster to 2012 DFS/cluster?
Another other tips or advice would be greatly appriachaited!!!!!
1) If we were to implement a 2012 member server DFS would be do it in the following order:
a) Update Windows 2008 scheme
b) Create Windows 2012 active / passive cluster
c) install 2012 A.D based DFS
2) If we moved to a single DFS name space how would be move all of our share from our 2003 file server cluster to 2012 DFS/cluster?
Another other tips or advice would be greatly appriachaited!!!!!
[X]
Welcome to Experts Exchange
Add your voice to the tech community where 5M+ people just like you are talking about what matters.
- Help others & share knowledge
- Earn cash & points
- Learn & ask questions
-
7
5
13 Comments
DFS is good is you have multiple locations, or multiple servers, or for migrating to new servers once you are on DFS.
If you just have a single location and a single (clustered) file server, DFS doesn't add much.
You might want to look at a DFS file share across two servers, each with their own "local" (not hared on a single SAN) storage, using DFS to present as a single share and DFS replication between the two servers, this then provides you with a different take on availability compared to an active/passive cluster with shared storage. You can also use a cluster file system (such as StorNext) to have an active/active file server cluster and use DFS to present the two file servers as a single server.
Migrating to DFS is the same as migrating to another server, ordinary file shares can be copied (robocopy/rsync to copy data across), and the same issues with moving profiles and redirected folders, however once you have moved to DFS, all future server changes can be done transparently from a client perspective.
If you just have a single location and a single (clustered) file server, DFS doesn't add much.
You might want to look at a DFS file share across two servers, each with their own "local" (not hared on a single SAN) storage, using DFS to present as a single share and DFS replication between the two servers, this then provides you with a different take on availability compared to an active/passive cluster with shared storage. You can also use a cluster file system (such as StorNext) to have an active/active file server cluster and use DFS to present the two file servers as a single server.
Migrating to DFS is the same as migrating to another server, ordinary file shares can be copied (robocopy/rsync to copy data across), and the same issues with moving profiles and redirected folders, however once you have moved to DFS, all future server changes can be done transparently from a client perspective.
Active today
Thank you for you replay. Actually we do have two file servers one at our main HQ and another smaller file server at a remote site. We wanted to move to DFS to allow for one common name space.
Is this the correct order for setting up DFS?
) If we were to implement a 2012 member server DFS would be do it in the following order:
a) Update Windows 2008 scheme
b) Create Windows 2012 active / passive cluster
c) install 2012 A.D based DFS
ALso, I was thinking about creating a small 2012 VM in both site and doing a prof-of-concept test to play with 2012 DFS in our current domain. Would doing so cause any problems or craete any A.D object that I should be concerned about?
Is this the correct order for setting up DFS?
) If we were to implement a 2012 member server DFS would be do it in the following order:
a) Update Windows 2008 scheme
b) Create Windows 2012 active / passive cluster
c) install 2012 A.D based DFS
ALso, I was thinking about creating a small 2012 VM in both site and doing a prof-of-concept test to play with 2012 DFS in our current domain. Would doing so cause any problems or craete any A.D object that I should be concerned about?
yes you have the correct high level workflow
you could use "domain.local/test" for your PoC, then use "domain.local/dfsroot", or "domain.local/shares" or whatever naming convention you like for the production DFS namespace.
once you are happy with the PoC, you can remove any shares and replications that you created, and then remove the namespace servers without any issues
you could use "domain.local/test" for your PoC, then use "domain.local/dfsroot", or "domain.local/shares" or whatever naming convention you like for the production DFS namespace.
once you are happy with the PoC, you can remove any shares and replications that you created, and then remove the namespace servers without any issues
Active today
The reason why you have to update the scheme is to support the 2012 DFS A.D replication correct?
Active today
in DFS how would you handle the following situation
Two different files server but each have shares , shared with the same names?????
Two different files server but each have shares , shared with the same names?????
It depends on how you setup your DFS hierarchy.
Moving to DFS gives you the perfect opportunity to resolve issues such as that, you can create and apply a consistent naming convention to file shares.
If a share is accessed by windows clients as a mapped drive, the share name is irrelevant, just push the new drive mapping out via logon script or group policy
You can also have the same share (with the same contents) on multiple servers, either with a cluster files system, or with DFS Replication.
Moving to DFS gives you the perfect opportunity to resolve issues such as that, you can create and apply a consistent naming convention to file shares.
If a share is accessed by windows clients as a mapped drive, the share name is irrelevant, just push the new drive mapping out via logon script or group policy
You can also have the same share (with the same contents) on multiple servers, either with a cluster files system, or with DFS Replication.
Active today
If I'm understand you correcntly if I setup A.D based DFS and currently have two seperate file servers that host share with the same names, I could add both share to DFS as it and there contents will be merged togther?????
No, DFS will not merge.
DFS provides two features, a single namespace, and replication. A client connects to the "best" (usually closest) server for the named share.
DFS provides two features, a single namespace, and replication. A client connects to the "best" (usually closest) server for the named share.
Active 1 day ago
If you have two shares with the same name on different servers you just have to have them in DFS as different names, or somewhere else i the structure, e.g.
\\domain.local\dfsroot\sha
\\domain.local\dfsroot\sha
\\domain.local\dfsroot\ser
\\domain.local\dfsroot\ser
Using DFS is always best when done from scratch but just publish your existing structure into DFS, re-arranging as you go along and adding new areas too if you wish then get your users to move over to new paths.... that depends how much is does at your place by UNC vs drive letters -- application install paths, drive mappings, settings in applications etc.
Good luck with it!
Steve
\\domain.local\dfsroot\sha
\\domain.local\dfsroot\sha
\\domain.local\dfsroot\ser
\\domain.local\dfsroot\ser
Using DFS is always best when done from scratch but just publish your existing structure into DFS, re-arranging as you go along and adding new areas too if you wish then get your users to move over to new paths.... that depends how much is does at your place by UNC vs drive letters -- application install paths, drive mappings, settings in applications etc.
Good luck with it!
Steve
Featured Post
Can Concerto Cloud Services help you focus on evolving your application offerings, while delivering the best cloud experience to your customers? From DevOps to revenue models and customer support, the answer is yes!
Learn how Concerto can help you.
Question has a verified solution.
If you are experiencing a similar issue, please ask a related question
Uncontrolled local administrators groups within any organization pose a huge security risk. Because these groups are locally managed it becomes difficult to audit and maintain them.
This process allows computer passwords to be managed and secured without using LAPS. This is an improvement on an existing process, enhanced to store password encrypted, instead of clear-text files within SQL
Microsoft Active Directory, the widely used IT infrastructure, is known for its high risk of credential theft. The best way to test your Active Directory’s vulnerabilities to pass-the-ticket, pass-the-hash, privilege escalation, and malware attacks …
Are you ready to implement Active Directory best practices without reading 300+ pages?
You're in luck. In this webinar hosted by Skyport Systems, you gain insight into Microsoft's latest comprehensive guide, with tips on the best and easiest way…
Suggested Courses
Course of the Month13 days, 19 hours left to enroll
656 members asked questions and received personalized solutions in the past 7 days.
Join the community of 500,000 technology professionals and ask your questions.