Alternative To Multihoming DC/DNS Servers?

Whe have multiple domain controllers that are multihomed to separate
backup traffic from the production network.
One of the DCs is also a file server so there is massive backup
traffic daily on it and it's too much data to complete backup jobs
only during off hours.

I have heard recommendations that just say "Don't multihome a DNS and/
or DC"


OK ... So, what an easy and inexpensive alternative other than using
multihoming to prevent all this backup traffic from running over the
production network and slowing everyone down as well as further
slowing the backups that already take many hours?

On Nov 5, 5:43*pm, "Bill Kearney" <wkearne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> <mygpo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>
> news:41ffab2f-cf7c-43e0-8eba-(E-Mail Removed)...
>
> > Whe have multiple domain controllers that are multihomed to separate
> > backup traffic from the production network.
> > One of the DCs is also a file server so there is massive backup
> > traffic daily on it and it's too much data to complete backup jobs
> > only during off hours.
>
> > I have heard recommendations that just say "Don't multihome a DNS and/
> > or DC"
>
> > OK ... *So, what an easy and inexpensive alternative other than using
> > multihoming to prevent all this backup traffic from running over the
> > production network and slowing everyone down as well as further
> > slowing the backups that already take many hours?
>
> If your network cards and switch supports it you could team multiple
> adapters to get added throughput. *Set it up likewise in the machine doing
> backups. *Potentially consider getting switches capable of being configured
> to prioritize traffic (not cheap, and not all that easy to configure). *Or
> at least segregating the DC/FS box with the backup box on their own switch
> to isolate the traffic.
>
> That and come up with some better schemes on backup. *Like dump to a local
> drive and then backup from there. *That way you can pull a 'snapshot' of
> sorts from the machine during the overnight and then back it up for as long
> as necessary.
>
> -Bill Kearney


I think there may be no alternative available in this case.
I found out that the reason the server is multihomed is because the
production network switch is 10/100.
To speed up backups, a second small switch with gigabit speed just for
the servers was installed to go along with installing second nics with
gigabit speed in the servers. The gigabit switch does not have enough
ports to be used for the production network and the company is not
going to buy new gigabit switches for the production network.
Working with these constraints, I can't see any way of taking
advantage of gigabit speeds for backups other than multihoming the
servers. They also do not have licenses to install additional servers
so that the file server didn't have to also be one of the domain
controllers and dns servers.
Can you see any other way to do this?

<(E-Mail Removed)>wrote:
> Whe have multiple domain controllers that are multihomed to separate
> backup traffic from the production network.
> One of the DCs is also a file server so there is massive backup
> traffic daily on it and it's too much data to complete backup jobs
> only during off hours.
>
> I have heard recommendations that just say "Don't multihome a DNS and/
> or DC"
Hi,

If not needed by your backup software, disable these for the NICs on the
backup network:

- File and Print Sharing for MS Networks
- In TCP/IP | Advanced | DNS tab | disable "Register this connection's
addresses in DNS"
- In TCP/IP | Advanced | WINS tab "Disable NetBIOS over TCP/IP"

This way you will prevent *some* of the problems caused by multihomed DCs.
After the changes, you should configure your backup software to find
computers by IP address instead of name because their addresses won't be in
DNS or WINS for the backup network anymore.

ThePro

Hello (E-Mail Removed),
Remove the second nic and backup the dc to a disk on a member server that
has the gig port and back that member server up. We currently do this with
all of our virtual servers and it has worked well. Creating a much larger
back up window for us, since disk to disk is so much quicker.


--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4


http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This posting
is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



> On Nov 5, 5:43 pm, "Bill Kearney" <wkearne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> <mygpo...@gmail.com> wrote in message
>>
>> news:41ffab2f-cf7c-43e0-8eba-(E-Mail Removed)
>> ...
>>
>>> Whe have multiple domain controllers that are multihomed to separate
>>> backup traffic from the production network.
>>> One of the DCs is also a file server so there is massive backup
>>> traffic daily on it and it's too much data to complete backup jobs
>>> only during off hours.
>>> I have heard recommendations that just say "Don't multihome a DNS
>>> and/ or DC"
>>>
>>> OK ... So, what an easy and inexpensive alternative other than
>>> using multihoming to prevent all this backup traffic from running
>>> over the production network and slowing everyone down as well as
>>> further slowing the backups that already take many hours?
>>>
>> If your network cards and switch supports it you could team multiple
>> adapters to get added throughput. Set it up likewise in the machine
>> doing backups. Potentially consider getting switches capable of
>> being configured to prioritize traffic (not cheap, and not all that
>> easy to configure). Or at least segregating the DC/FS box with the
>> backup box on their own switch to isolate the traffic.
>>
>> That and come up with some better schemes on backup. Like dump to a
>> local drive and then backup from there. That way you can pull a
>> 'snapshot' of sorts from the machine during the overnight and then
>> back it up for as long as necessary.
>>
>> -Bill Kearney
>>
> I think there may be no alternative available in this case.
> I found out that the reason the server is multihomed is because the
> production network switch is 10/100.
> To speed up backups, a second small switch with gigabit speed just for
> the servers was installed to go along with installing second nics with
> gigabit speed in the servers. The gigabit switch does not have enough
> ports to be used for the production network and the company is not
> going to buy new gigabit switches for the production network.
> Working with these constraints, I can't see any way of taking
> advantage of gigabit speeds for backups other than multihoming the
> servers. They also do not have licenses to install additional servers
> so that the file server didn't have to also be one of the domain
> controllers and dns servers.
> Can you see any other way to do this

On Nov 6, 5:18*am, Paul Bergson [MVP-DS] <pbbergs@nospam_msn.com>
wrote:
> Hello mygpo...@gmail.com,
> Remove the second nic and backup the dc to a disk on a member server that
> has the gig port and back that member server up. *We currently do this with
> all of our virtual servers and it has worked well. *Creating a much larger
> back up window for us, since disk to disk is so much quicker.
>
> --
> Paul Bergson
> MVP - Directory Services
> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
>


I don't understand how that would work in a reasonable amount of
time. "Backup the dc to a disk on a member server?" Over the 10/100
network?
One of the dcs is a file server that would take ages to transfer the
data to backup to another server via the 10/100 network.

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:b7328b45-4cb4-4723-a4ad-(E-Mail Removed)...

I don't understand how that would work in a reasonable amount of
time. "Backup the dc to a disk on a member server?" Over the 10/100
network?
One of the dcs is a file server that would take ages to transfer the
data to backup to another server via the 10/100 network.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

No it doesn't. I backup over half a dozen servers this way (almost
simultaneously) and the traffic is not even noticed. Backup traffic is
*not* "broadcast" traffic,..it is "directed" traffic,...and in a fully
switched network the Switches separate the traffic with Virtual Circuits.
The only links hit hard is the patch cable between the Server and the first
Switch and maybe a backbone link between the switches if there are multiple
switches involved and I think you underestimate how much load it can really
take.

Besides that you are supposed to run Backup in off-peak hours anyway.

Then you need to consider the fact that the traditional forms of backip up
to tape is *dying* with the dinosaurs.
Learn what Ms's Data Protection Manager is and what it does.

Microsoft System Center Data Protection Manager 2007 Home
http://www.microsoft.com/systemcente...s/default.aspx

For the File Server use a couple harge external USB Hard Drives. You can get
2 Terabyte drives now fairly cheap. Alternate between drives each day. They
may each show up with a different drive letter so make sure it is a separate
"backup job" for each. Store the drives with the same safety and security
methods as you would tapes.


--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

<(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:41ffab2f-cf7c-43e0-8eba-(E-Mail Removed)...
> Whe have multiple domain controllers that are multihomed to separate
> backup traffic from the production network.
> One of the DCs is also a file server so there is massive backup
> traffic daily on it and it's too much data to complete backup jobs
> only during off hours.
>
> I have heard recommendations that just say "Don't multihome a DNS and/
> or DC"

You missed the second part: "Don't use DCs as File Servers".

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

Hello (E-Mail Removed),
You spin disk to disk (Much quicker than disk to tape) and then during the
day you spin it to tape when tape use is not used. We have large temp folders
on our san, so it might not work for you and your environment, but you asked
for options.


--
Paul Bergson
MVP - Directory Services
MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4


http://www.pbbergs.com

Please no e-mails, any questions should be posted in the NewsGroup This posting
is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.



> On Nov 6, 5:18 am, Paul Bergson [MVP-DS] <pbbergs@nospam_msn.com>
> wrote:
>
>> Hello mygpo...@gmail.com,
>> Remove the second nic and backup the dc to a disk on a member server
>> that
>> has the gig port and back that member server up. We currently do
>> this with
>> all of our virtual servers and it has worked well. Creating a much
>> larger
>> back up window for us, since disk to disk is so much quicker.
>> --
>> Paul Bergson
>> MVP - Directory Services
>> MCTS, MCT, MCSE, MCSA, Security+, BS CSci
>> 2008, 2003, 2000 (Early Achiever), NT4
> I don't understand how that would work in a reasonable amount of
> time. "Backup the dc to a disk on a member server?" Over the 10/100
> network?
> One of the dcs is a file server that would take ages to transfer the
> data to backup to another server via the 10/100 network

"Phillip Windell" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:b7328b45-4cb4-4723-a4ad-(E-Mail Removed)...
> For the File Server use a couple harge external USB Hard Drives. You can
> get 2 Terabyte drives now fairly cheap. Alternate between drives each day.
> They may each show up with a different drive letter so make sure it is a
> separate "backup job" for each. Store the drives with the same safety and
> security methods as you would tapes.

Forgot to mention. Our File Server has the Tape Drive *in* it. So the
backup "traffic" never leaves the machine. It takes three tapes to backup
the file storage at three to four hours a tape. It is done weekly (not
daily) and begins on Thursday, finishes on Friday and goes into the safe. I
am only backing up the file storage here,...not the whole server with system
state,...that is done below

I only backup the other servers and the File Server without the file storage
"across the network" to "files" on a particular machine and they are over
written daily. These are full backups with System State without the File
Server's file storage. They get archived to tape weekly,...yep, that means
I don't keep every single daily file, only the Friday files get archived.
The tapes are kept for one month then are over written, so this means I
always have 4 copies on hand.

On that particular machine the tape drive is attach via SCSI,...so again the
tape backup traffic never leaves the machine and in about there hours it
moves the backup "files" from over half a dozen servers to the tape.

My solution isn't perfect but it gets the job done for almost no cost and no
adverse effects on the LAN or any undesireable bad LAN designs (like
multi-homing any machines). I'd love to have "Data Protection
Manager",...maybe someday Santa will bring that to me for Christmas.

--
Phillip Windell
www.wandtv.com

The views expressed, are my own and not those of my employer, or Microsoft,
or anyone else associated with me, including my cats.
-----------------------------------------------------

On Nov 8, 1:39*pm, "Bill Kearney" <wkearne...@hotmail.com> wrote:
> > I think there may be no alternative available in this case.
> > I found out that the reason the server is multihomed is because the
> > production network switch is 10/100.
>
> How many servers are you talking about here? *It would really help to have a
> better explanation of what's happening, on which boxes, and how they're
> networked.
>
> > To speed up backups, a second small switch with gigabit speed just for
> > the servers was installed to go along with installing second nics with
> > gigabit speed in the servers. *The gigabit switch does not have enough
> > ports to be used for the production network and the company is not
> > going to buy new gigabit switches for the production network.
>
> This smacks of inefficiencies. *Someone needs to start measuring the network
> to find throughput bottlenecks. *It could be something stupid like the
> routing is setup such that no traffic actually goes over the gigE links. *As
> in, pulling from hostnames, not IP addresses and not having interface and
> gateway metrics set up properly.
>
> What sort activities are being used on this network? *Regular office apps,
> databases or what? *Advice varies based on expected types of traffic loads.
>
> > Working with these constraints, I can't see any way of taking
> > advantage of gigabit speeds for backups other than multihoming the
> > servers. *They also do not have licenses to install additional servers
> > so that the file server didn't have to also be one of the domain
> > controllers and dns servers.
> > Can you see any other way to do this?
>
> Good, fast, cheap... pick two. *It's a universal law. *Something's gotta
> give. *Since you want faster backups (that's good and fast) that leavesout
> cheap. *Money's going to have to get spent to solve this. *My bet is on
> rearranging the networking using teamed interfaces and a switch properly
> setup to funnel the bandwidth appropriately.
>
> -Bill Kearney

There are 5 servers. 3 are DC's and 2 of the DCs are file servers.
Two of the DCs are DNS and one of the DCs is dhcp.
They are multihomed with one nic connected to the 10/100 production
network and the second nic connected to the small gigabit network used
exclusively for backups.

The production network has everything else, about 400 regular office
users, some database servers, everything else.
It is much too slow to backup the file server over the production
network because the production network is 10/100 speed. So, a small
gigabit switch (on a different subnet) was purchased so the servers
can run their backups at gigabit speed. The company is not going to
replace the 10/100 switches used for the production network with
gigabit switches because of of the cost, so just dumping the old
switches and replacing them with gigabit switches so the servers could
use 1 nic each is not an available solution. Without spending
thousands of dollars that are not available, what other solution is
there?