Active Directory, Take Three thhbbb's

Well, the move to Active Directory is long since done. Once I got the memory in the migration was all pretty straight forward. Install Windows Server 2003, follow the wizards to join as a directory server in Active Directory, transfer FSMO roles, retired the temporary server, etc - etc - etc. In reality, after the migration, everything worked as before. Some of the services I had on OpenBSD were transfered to MS - like the Dynaic DHCP services and DNS.

Somewhere in the mix was a call to purchase a new file server. And then they let me configure it (hehehe). OK, so the hardware I got was overkill: Dual Opteron 246's, 2Gigs of RAM, 2 36gig 15k rpm SCSI hard drives in a mirror config via MS, Dual Layer DVD burner, Seagate DAT72 backup tape. Slipped that hardware into a cool tri-powersupplied 3U rack box for the light price of around $6,500cdn. The software, A second set of Windows Server 2003 with 75 CALs need to be added to it - but with MS Volume License Educational Pricing, came in less than you might think. Of course I got the system custom built, it is near impossible to find "Tier One" like HP, Compaq, or IBM selling something near that config - let alone with a Dual Layer DVD burner!

So, originally I was going to retire the old Pentium 3 600 file server, but once I got into researching some of the new features of Server 2003, I had a different plan. I discovered Dynamic File System, or DFS. DFS is an awesome idea. A central place to organize and publish shares from. In this way, you share from the domain and not the server. But not only that, you can setup mirroring between two distinct shares on two or more different machines. Instant on the fly backups! If one machine goes down - ie hard disk failure, or power supply, or mainboard, your staff and their workflow are not down or even interupted! Unless of course, the other machine(s) go down but that is in a whole different category. How can there be a downside you ask? Oh there is, believe me. DFS is not all sweet and juicy cherries. I'll cover what I learned in my next journal entry.

Oh, and our migration from Dynix to Horizon is long since passed. I have some beefs about it too, but I figure I'm quite lucky cause I don't have to deal with it everyday. One suprising note is that Dynix has moved the HIP backend database from Interbase 6 to Firebird - at least that is what they installed for our HIP installation. For this Dynix, I applaude you.

Am I somewhat sorry for putting the library through this pain without actual training? To be honest, I highly doubt that I would have done much better even with proper training. Now, <knock on much wood> as long as this Acer Motherboard will last, everything should be just dandy! I've ordered more memory for it, going fill up all banks in the box for a whopping 1Gb. I guess that is not so whopping anymore, eh?

Comments

Sour cherries in DFS

I've worked with earlier MS systems, and a small bit of similar technologies on FOSS systems, but I have no exposure at all to MS's versions of File Replication and Distributed File Systems, so I'm gonna take a wild guess here.


I'm thinking one of the problems will stem from an interaction between the several different methods for managing name-space (DNS, NetBIOS, WINS) and which of those several different approaches each version of Windows (98/NT4/2K/2K3) prefers out of the box. Serial versions of the same OS are surprisingly heterogeneous, even coming from the one MotherShip as they do. Active Directory patches some of the bumps, won't completely smooth things out.


Things will go reasonably well when you have them up and running. But an outage (say, re-boot for a security update) will have some resources unavailable for something like 20-30 minutes, even after that particular server is back up and running supposedly fine. This will be because some other reasonably powerful machine on the network (but not necessarily the same one each time) will have taken over as the authority for that name, as an on-the-fly backup, even though it really doesn't know a damn thing about the name-space. It will take at least 10 minutes, probably more for the authoritative server to take control again, after which all the clients will have to finally switch back to that authority. There will not be a fix in a service pack, because this is actually the expected behavior.


Other issues will certainly arise when it comes time to migrate to a newer server version on any of the Distributed/Replicated resources.
Oh, and get your names right the first time, or you might as well just start everything over from scratch.


So, was I anywhere near the mark?

Re:Sour cherries in DFS

Well, lucky for me, I'm only using DFS between two Win2K3 machines. And if memory serves, the provision for DFS to actually work is that it must be in an Active Directory domain space, so no NT/ME/98/95 shares allowed.Those interested, A DFS primer can be found here.Hehe, since I have yet to experience DFS when a system has crashed, I cannot say for sure what is the expected behaviour. I haven't moved the organization I work for completely over to DFS on every file/folder share, so I have dared not to apply a service pack or update during business hours. However, I have actually found other really dumb annoyances that I will talk about in my next journal entry.Now, I think, DFS only manages file shares, things like printer shares are a different matter entirely.So I guess the answer is: No, at least, not within my experience - yet.

Re:Sour cherries in DFS

Hrm.


I was thinking of earlier OS versions as *clients* of the shares. I'm pretty sure there is some support for both Active Directory and DFS in most of them.


I expect that NT at least has some support out of the box (or really, out of the latest service pack), ME is a bastard home-only OS so it won't get anything (similarly with XP Home). 98/95 probably have some limited abilities supported in an "extension", but it will likely break other things if you install it.


Ah, the march of the upgrade.

Re:Sour cherries in DFS

Oh - whoops. My mistake. Yes there is AD Clients for 9x/NT. Admittedly no machine in my organization that is 9x/NT is going to be connected to such shares. Only to printers. The rest is XP.
Ah, the march of the upgrade
Yes. Too bad the music isn't always as pretty.

Syndicate content