Kooler on DFS-R Issues
-
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
As for the DFS-R...
I agree, it does have it's drawbacks and doesn't work well or as expected in some environments. But that doesn't mean it's not a good fit and won't work in others. I've seen it's success a lot.Years ago when I deployed this for our 2 locations (namespace and all) I pondered over the weekend what a genius move it was.
It only took a few weeks for the disillusionment to set in. I can't think of any scenario when DFRS would be good for anything else. It would have taken 9 years for our data to seed (if those servers were in the same room on the same switch. I even read in forums where admins where start DFS-R deployments and had allotted 6 months for the initial data to seed. Are you kidding? And just because it was "Microsoft" this was legit to them.
Even as I tried to use it for a single folder it was useless. RCOPY was far superior with a little scripting.
In my mind DFS-R is only good for the purpose I imagine it was originally created for, Active Directory replication...
-
@bigbear said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
As for the DFS-R...
I agree, it does have it's drawbacks and doesn't work well or as expected in some environments. But that doesn't mean it's not a good fit and won't work in others. I've seen it's success a lot.Years ago when I deployed this for our 2 locations (namespace and all) I pondered over the weekend what a genius move it was.
It only took a few weeks for the disillusionment to set in. I can't think of any scenario when DFRS would be good for anything else. It would have taken 9 years for our data to seed (if those servers were in the same room on the same switch. I even read in forums where admins where start DFS-R deployments and had allotted 6 months for the initial data to seed. Are you kidding? And just because it was "Microsoft" this was legit to them.
Even as I tried to use it for a single folder it was useless. RCOPY was far superior with a little scripting.
In my mind DFS-R is only good for the purpose I imagine it was originally created for, Active Directory replication...
9 years? How many PB or EB were you initially replicating with DFS-R?
You would "seed" data with an external USB3 drive to the destination server, if you get less than 120 MBps.
But I've done terabytes over a weekend on numerous occasions, without "seeding", just using regular DFS-R from serverA to serverB. (millions of files)
What was the issue with your setup? Was it a ton of data over congested 10Mb Ethernet, or slow WAN?
-
The issue was the Microsoft product. This was Windows Server 2003 circa 2005 so it may pre-date your experience with Microsoft I don't know whats improved since then but it cant be much as you never hear anyone bragging about there awesome DFS-R deployment, lol.
As of Windows Server 2003 you couldn't seed a DFS-R partner with data, it had to be deployed at the first link and the server had to replicate it it build the library.
If you LOST that replication partner you had to start all over. In what version of Windows server did any of this change or get better?
-
@bigbear said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
The issue was the Microsoft product. This was Windows Server 2003 circa 2005 so it may pre-date your experience with Microsoft I don't know whats improved since then but it cant be much as you never hear anyone bragging about there awesome DFS-R deployment, lol.
As of Windows Server 2003 you couldn't seed a DFS-R partner with data, it had to be deployed at the first link and the server had to replicate it it build the library.
If you LOST that replication partner you had to start all over. In what version of Windows server did any of this change or get better?
Oh I see.
Must have been made better in 2008 or 2008 R2. I haven't used DFS-R before that (2008 R2). In my experience, it's always worked after configuring it properly. I use it on 2008 R2, 2012 R2, and 2016.
-
@Tim_G that is interesting to know, will do some reading up.
I nearly deployed a branch cache environment circa 2009 or 2010 but just didnt have the desire to go through trial and error. Have you had any experience with that?
-
@bigbear said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@Tim_G that is interesting to know, will do some reading up.
I nearly deployed a branch cache environment circa 2009 or 2010 but just didnt have the desire to go through trial and error. Have you had any experience with that?
I wouldn't use it pre-2012 R2. But as far as implementing it, what's the occasion and requirement?
-
Few TB of live data being accessed between two sites WAS the scenario. The company has reorganized and split in to two new companies at this point. Now I am just curious as I have been in Microsoft mode all weekend.
Before it was a lot of CAD drawings access remotely, edited and collaborated on between offices.
-
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
So... Keeping in mind you can use free Hyper-V server and free StarWind virtual SAN to build a two-node shared nothing SMB3 clustered file server free of charge... I think it's time to retire DFS-R See Step-by-Step guide:
Hyper-V: Free “Shared Nothing” SMB3 Failover File Server
https://www.starwindsoftware.com/blog/part-2-smb-3-0-file-server-on-free-microsoft-hyper-v-server-20...
Except this violates the Hyper-V Server 20xx license and is illegal. Do it on Windows Server and all is well. You'll need two Windows Server licenses, but StarWind vSAN is free. Or use Linux with StarWind vSAN.
I'm not too sure about SMB 3.x on Linux, but there may be ways.
I only skimmed things, was this enabling a role on the hyper-v server itself? If so, this is completely against the license agreement and not something anyone related to this forum should be supporting or posting.
-
@JaredBusch I actually couldn't figure out why the OP violated the licensing agreement. Its running a 3rd party image on the free version of Hyper-V
-
@JaredBusch said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
So... Keeping in mind you can use free Hyper-V server and free StarWind virtual SAN to build a two-node shared nothing SMB3 clustered file server free of charge... I think it's time to retire DFS-R See Step-by-Step guide:
Hyper-V: Free “Shared Nothing” SMB3 Failover File Server
https://www.starwindsoftware.com/blog/part-2-smb-3-0-file-server-on-free-microsoft-hyper-v-server-20...
Except this violates the Hyper-V Server 20xx license and is illegal. Do it on Windows Server and all is well. You'll need two Windows Server licenses, but StarWind vSAN is free. Or use Linux with StarWind vSAN.
I'm not too sure about SMB 3.x on Linux, but there may be ways.
I only skimmed things, was this enabling a role on the hyper-v server itself? If so, this is completely against the license agreement and not something anyone related to this forum should be supporting or posting.
Not against the license, but not free. Requires consuming one of your two VM licenses to do it if it is the only workload.
-
@bigbear said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@JaredBusch I actually couldn't figure out why the OP violated the licensing agreement. Its running a 3rd party image on the free version of Hyper-V
I spoke to them about this and apparently even MS has some uncertainty as to their license here and they've been trying to work it out. Some people at MS have told them that if they is used purely in the support of Hyper-V (including other Hyper-V) that it qualifies the same as a backup agent under the free use. but if you use it as a general SAN, of course it does not apply, like connecting it to ESXi. But because you are able to run pieces like this in a hyperconverged mode under the free license, it makes sense that you can in a non-hyperconverged mode as well.
-
But of course, if you are doing this to make an SMB server to serve files directly to end users, doesn't work without consuming a license.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@bigbear said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@JaredBusch I actually couldn't figure out why the OP violated the licensing agreement. Its running a 3rd party image on the free version of Hyper-V
I spoke to them about this and apparently even MS has some uncertainty as to their license here and they've been trying to work it out. Some people at MS have told them that if they is used purely in the support of Hyper-V (including other Hyper-V) that it qualifies the same as a backup agent under the free use. but if you use it as a general SAN, of course it does not apply, like connecting it to ESXi. But because you are able to run pieces like this in a hyperconverged mode under the free license, it makes sense that you can in a non-hyperconverged mode as well.
The physical server running Hyper-V Server (the hypervisor) cannot act as a file server, serving files to users or clients. It can only be used for supporting Hyper-V... including clustering, monitoring, etc.
I think I linked licensing information specific to this either here or on SW. I don't feel like digging it up atm, but will later if I need to.
-
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
The physical server running Hyper-V Server (the hypervisor) cannot act as a file server, serving files to users or clients. It can only be used for supporting Hyper-V... including clustering, monitoring, etc.
The problem is, those are conflicting statements. Supporting Hyper-V Clustering is specifically what it is used for. Otherwise, you consume a license using Starwind always or even not using Starwind, just using local disks. But we know that local disks are okay. So using Starwind for Hyper-V clustering is logically okay as well. It just makes sense. It follows by the wording and the intent of the license.
Now maybe there is an argument that Hyper-V cannot provide its own storage via SMB3 and only iSCSI, in which case, I could see that being convoluted and weird, but could make sense.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
The physical server running Hyper-V Server (the hypervisor) cannot act as a file server, serving files to users or clients. It can only be used for supporting Hyper-V... including clustering, monitoring, etc.
The problem is, those are conflicting statements. Supporting Hyper-V Clustering is specifically what it is used for. Otherwise, you consume a license using Starwind always or even not using Starwind, just using local disks. But we know that local disks are okay. So using Starwind for Hyper-V clustering is logically okay as well. It just makes sense. It follows by the wording and the intent of the license.
Now maybe there is an argument that Hyper-V cannot provide its own storage via SMB3 and only iSCSI, in which case, I could see that being convoluted and weird, but could make sense.
I meant clustering as in you can add your Hyper-V Server hypervisor to a hyper-v cluster. Then sure you can have a licensed windows VM running on that cluster that is doing the storage services and file serving... but not at the host level for the file services roles and features.
-
You can't install a 3rd party software to do storage or file server roles in place of the built in, thinking that is a way around it. It's not.
-
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
... but not at the host level for the file services roles and features.
Right, not for FS role.
-
@Tim_G said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
You can't install a 3rd party software to do storage or file server roles in place of the built in, thinking that is a way around it. It's not.
Correct, I agree. In the clustering scenario, Hyper-V can do it with or without SW.
-
Does this solution not work on any other hypervisors?
-
@bigbear said in Kooler on DFS-R Issues:
Does this solution not work on any other hypervisors?
It does, but requires a Windows VM.
