locked
DFSR Alternatives RRS feed

  • Question

  • Hey all,

    I have a fairly large DFSR implementation in which I think I am pushing the limits. I have already passed the recommended limits and am now pushing roughly 8 TB per set of servers and over 10 million files. I have 9 of these so its like 72 TB. I was wondering if anyone has any better more robust solutions or if I just need to add more sets of DFSR servers to spread the data out more.

    Here's what I need from a solution which are all included in DFSR: ( a full appliance style hardware solution

    1. A distributed Namespace - i.e. one virtual name can point to multiple servers\share on the back side.

    2. Two way replication, real time (or close to it)

    3. Ability to prioritize where the user load goes and be able to move the users around on the back side.

    4. Ability for users to connect to any of the machines in the namespace (i.e. not read only, nearline, or offline)

    Thanks in advance


    Life moves pretty fast. If you don't stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it.


    • Edited by kilimanj99 Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:52 PM typo
    Thursday, April 30, 2015 2:51 PM

Answers

  • Hi,

    DFS is the build-in feature which as you said is the solution of your purpose. I contact DFS product team in the past for the limitation and at that time the answer I got is "it depends" - with more powerful and more devices support, DFS/DFSR actually could support more data. Currently there is no clearly "limitation" for both size and number which supported by DFS.

    In my peronal of view, DFS seems still be the option in current version of Windows system.


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and un-mark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Friday, May 1, 2015 6:59 AM

All replies

  • Hi,

    DFS is the build-in feature which as you said is the solution of your purpose. I contact DFS product team in the past for the limitation and at that time the answer I got is "it depends" - with more powerful and more devices support, DFS/DFSR actually could support more data. Currently there is no clearly "limitation" for both size and number which supported by DFS.

    In my peronal of view, DFS seems still be the option in current version of Windows system.


    Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and un-mark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact tnmff@microsoft.com.

    Friday, May 1, 2015 6:59 AM
  • Hi,

    did you get your problems sorted out. Planning a move from NetApp to DFS-R environment and we have the same amount of data as you. Plans to run one namespace server and several virtual fileshare servers with a max of 4 TB/ server. Do you see any problems with thah ?

    Br,

    Staffan

    Monday, November 30, 2015 8:39 AM
  • We have faced the same challenges.  And we have concluded that DFS-R is not a viable replicaiton method for large organizations.  DFS works great.  DFS replication, not so great.  There are two main reasons for this opinion; #1 A lack of distributed file locking and #2 Lack of reliability.

    I have a Microsoft case open now that is related to #2.  Files that automatically return after being deleted by a user.  This appears to be AV software related.  But we use Microsoft software for AV.  So that's a negative for DFS-R.

    Consider SAN storage, and use SAN based replication to replace DFS-R.  Still use DFS, just don't use DFS-R in this scenario.

    Monday, November 30, 2015 7:06 PM