Jay Collen
Guest
|
 Posted:
Sat May 08, 2004 6:06 pm Post subject:
Storage Scenario question |
|
|
Hi,
We are running a few websites (Windows 2003 Web Edition) with increasing
storage needs due to the sites offering client upload/document storage
facilities. These storage needs have got to the point now where we have
decided to purchase a couple of NAS servers running Windows Storage Server
2003. I would like to link the IIS websites directly to allocated space on
one of the NAS servers and the other one being a replica of this. Can
someone recommend a best practise for this - I am currently thinking of
using DFS and making use of the FRS to create copies on the other NAS
server. Alongside this I will probably implement some Shadow Copies for
further redundancy. Do you think that this is a realistic solution for a web
based situation (or would I be better looking at something like NSI
Software's Double-Take to replicate data)? Also, with regards to the Shadow
Copies, the server itself is 4 physical disks (RAID 5) configured as 2
volumes (1 small volume for operating system and the rest for client data
storage) - would it be ok to store the shadow copies on this larger volume
or would it reduce performance? (Maybe I should create another volume for
the Shadow Copies?).
Many thanks for any responses,
Jay Collen
------------ |
|
Joseph J. Hand
Guest
|
| Posted:
Mon May 24, 2004 3:49 am Post subject:
Re: Storage Scenario question |
|
|
Jay,
You have several options.
First, you can easilly point IIS at a virtual directory on the NAS device.
For redundancy, you can use any replication product available (Third party
or built in) to get the data on more than one server.
Second, you could use more than one Web Edition server, each with it's own
replicated data with the load balancing service in place, which would
provide you with not only redundant copies of the data, but a redundant
front end as well, in case you lose the web server itself.
Third, you could use a nice combination of both. Having the redundant front
end with the less expensive Web Edition and using the clusterable Storage
Server on the back end.
As for the Shadow Copies, certainly moving the VSS copies to another volume
will help performance, so long as they reside on separate physical disks,
not the same internal storage you are using already for the volume being
copied. If you are only able to use the same disks, then keep it as one
volume and the I/O subsystem will take less of beating due to disk
contention.
Hope this helps.
jh
"Jay Collen" <jcollen896@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:OrossWQNEHA.3192@TK2MSFTNGP11.phx.gbl...
| Quote: | Hi,
We are running a few websites (Windows 2003 Web Edition) with increasing
storage needs due to the sites offering client upload/document storage
facilities. These storage needs have got to the point now where we have
decided to purchase a couple of NAS servers running Windows Storage Server
2003. I would like to link the IIS websites directly to allocated space on
one of the NAS servers and the other one being a replica of this. Can
someone recommend a best practise for this - I am currently thinking of
using DFS and making use of the FRS to create copies on the other NAS
server. Alongside this I will probably implement some Shadow Copies for
further redundancy. Do you think that this is a realistic solution for a
web
based situation (or would I be better looking at something like NSI
Software's Double-Take to replicate data)? Also, with regards to the
Shadow
Copies, the server itself is 4 physical disks (RAID 5) configured as 2
volumes (1 small volume for operating system and the rest for client data
storage) - would it be ok to store the shadow copies on this larger volume
or would it reduce performance? (Maybe I should create another volume for
the Shadow Copies?).
Many thanks for any responses,
Jay Collen
------------
|
|
|
FAQ
Memberlist
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in