Windows Server 2003 - Cloning/Mirroring/Clustering 2 identical ser

Hi everyone.

I have a client that wanted to mirror two identical servers running Windows
2003 Server Standard. After a bit of research, I proposed that they should
upgrade each server to Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for the clustering
feature. This seemed like the most viable solution to me. After sending
them the estimate, the customer called back - "We don't want a quote on
clustering, we want a quote on mirroring."

I'm thinking they're the same thing. Clustering seems to be the best
option, but is there another way to do it? I don't know if programs like
Ghost for Enterprise (or another program) will allow for live cloning of one
server to another so that should the primary server fail, the other one can
be easily switched over and resume operation with the same files, computer
name, domain, etc.

Any suggestions? I think the cost of upgrading both servers to 2003
Enterprise is what the customer is hung up on.

Thanks! =)

Fyrestryke,

Out of curiousity, what type of data is stored on the server? A database or
a website?

Clustering is sort of an expensive solution. Its not just the upgrade to
wk3 enterrpise, but also a shared hard drive solution. You may be able to
just add a shared hard drive, but Microsoft usually prefers you to go with a
clustered solution. If possible, you may want to look at Network Load
balancing- however this tool is used for servers that share data that does
not change (web server, VPN server, firewall). NLB is supported on Window
2k3 standard for free. If not you may want to go to HPs website and examine
the cost of their clustered solutions.

hope this helps

alex



"Fyrestryke" wrote:

> Hi everyone.
>
> I have a client that wanted to mirror two identical servers running Windows
> 2003 Server Standard. After a bit of research, I proposed that they should
> upgrade each server to Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for the clustering
> feature. This seemed like the most viable solution to me. After sending
> them the estimate, the customer called back - "We don't want a quote on
> clustering, we want a quote on mirroring."
>
> I'm thinking they're the same thing. Clustering seems to be the best
> option, but is there another way to do it? I don't know if programs like
> Ghost for Enterprise (or another program) will allow for live cloning of one
> server to another so that should the primary server fail, the other one can
> be easily switched over and resume operation with the same files, computer
> name, domain, etc.
>
> Any suggestions? I think the cost of upgrading both servers to 2003
> Enterprise is what the customer is hung up on.
>
> Thanks! =)

Hi Alex.

The server in question is a file server and also stores some sort of
accounting software that changes rather frequently. They basically want to
have another server sitting there (that they already have) with the same
exact information that can easily be put into place with little to no
downtime. Right now, they have been cloning the drives (using Ghost or
somesuch) by cloning to a USB external drive and then cloning that back to
the backup server. They're wanting it to be more automated and realtime-ish.
I'm just wondering if there's something else that will do it (besides
clustering) or if I should be looking at someone else's clustering add-on
solution for 2K3 Standard? The best solution would be some sort of real-time
solution so that in the event of hardware failure, the backup server can take
over for the primary server with minimal downtime. Since the servers will be
physically setting next to each other, this only protects them against
technical failures as a fire/catastrophe would render them non-functional for
quite some time. They are doing backups in addition to wanting the duplicate
server.

"alexk" wrote:

> Fyrestryke,
>
> Out of curiousity, what type of data is stored on the server? A database or
> a website?
>
> Clustering is sort of an expensive solution. Its not just the upgrade to
> wk3 enterrpise, but also a shared hard drive solution. You may be able to
> just add a shared hard drive, but Microsoft usually prefers you to go with a
> clustered solution. If possible, you may want to look at Network Load
> balancing- however this tool is used for servers that share data that does
> not change (web server, VPN server, firewall). NLB is supported on Window
> 2k3 standard for free. If not you may want to go to HPs website and examine
> the cost of their clustered solutions.
>
> hope this helps
>
> alex
>
>
>
> "Fyrestryke" wrote:
>
> > Hi everyone.
> >
> > I have a client that wanted to mirror two identical servers running Windows
> > 2003 Server Standard. After a bit of research, I proposed that they should
> > upgrade each server to Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for the clustering
> > feature. This seemed like the most viable solution to me. After sending
> > them the estimate, the customer called back - "We don't want a quote on
> > clustering, we want a quote on mirroring."
> >
> > I'm thinking they're the same thing. Clustering seems to be the best
> > option, but is there another way to do it? I don't know if programs like
> > Ghost for Enterprise (or another program) will allow for live cloning of one
> > server to another so that should the primary server fail, the other one can
> > be easily switched over and resume operation with the same files, computer
> > name, domain, etc.
> >
> > Any suggestions? I think the cost of upgrading both servers to 2003
> > Enterprise is what the customer is hung up on.
> >
> > Thanks! =)

Fyrestryke,

Couple of things- Has the company at least implemented RAID1 for data
protection on the server in question?

In addition, does the application itself support any form of fault
tolerance? Multiple instances?
The problem is that you are going to attempt to copy files from one machine
to another immediately. There are many issues to worry about. File locking,
last update. I would recommend looking into DFS/FRS community. Many of them
are working on similar projects with network shares and files and using FRS.
This has issues also that they discuss. For a perfect clone of a server-
clustering is obviously the way to go but it is expensive.
Let me know if this helps.

alex k

"Fyrestryke" wrote:

> Hi Alex.
>
> The server in question is a file server and also stores some sort of
> accounting software that changes rather frequently. They basically want to
> have another server sitting there (that they already have) with the same
> exact information that can easily be put into place with little to no
> downtime. Right now, they have been cloning the drives (using Ghost or
> somesuch) by cloning to a USB external drive and then cloning that back to
> the backup server. They're wanting it to be more automated and realtime-ish.
> I'm just wondering if there's something else that will do it (besides
> clustering) or if I should be looking at someone else's clustering add-on
> solution for 2K3 Standard? The best solution would be some sort of real-time
> solution so that in the event of hardware failure, the backup server can take
> over for the primary server with minimal downtime. Since the servers will be
> physically setting next to each other, this only protects them against
> technical failures as a fire/catastrophe would render them non-functional for
> quite some time. They are doing backups in addition to wanting the duplicate
> server.
>
> "alexk" wrote:
>
> > Fyrestryke,
> >
> > Out of curiousity, what type of data is stored on the server? A database or
> > a website?
> >
> > Clustering is sort of an expensive solution. Its not just the upgrade to
> > wk3 enterrpise, but also a shared hard drive solution. You may be able to
> > just add a shared hard drive, but Microsoft usually prefers you to go with a
> > clustered solution. If possible, you may want to look at Network Load
> > balancing- however this tool is used for servers that share data that does
> > not change (web server, VPN server, firewall). NLB is supported on Window
> > 2k3 standard for free. If not you may want to go to HPs website and examine
> > the cost of their clustered solutions.
> >
> > hope this helps
> >
> > alex
> >
> >
> >
> > "Fyrestryke" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi everyone.
> > >
> > > I have a client that wanted to mirror two identical servers running Windows
> > > 2003 Server Standard. After a bit of research, I proposed that they should
> > > upgrade each server to Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for the clustering
> > > feature. This seemed like the most viable solution to me. After sending
> > > them the estimate, the customer called back - "We don't want a quote on
> > > clustering, we want a quote on mirroring."
> > >
> > > I'm thinking they're the same thing. Clustering seems to be the best
> > > option, but is there another way to do it? I don't know if programs like
> > > Ghost for Enterprise (or another program) will allow for live cloning of one
> > > server to another so that should the primary server fail, the other one can
> > > be easily switched over and resume operation with the same files, computer
> > > name, domain, etc.
> > >
> > > Any suggestions? I think the cost of upgrading both servers to 2003
> > > Enterprise is what the customer is hung up on.
> > >
> > > Thanks! =)

Yes, both servers are setup with a RAID 1 (mirrored) setup.

Yes, that helps much. Can you provide me a link or some general directions
to the DFS/FRS community as I am unfamiliar with that terminology.

I'm also thinking that Clustering is the way to go. I've checked a lot of
"server mirroring" software sites out today and have also looked at
Clustering solutions from Veritas/Symantec as a possible add-on. I tried to
call Veritas/Symantec for some pricing and general information, but their
offices were closed already.

Thanks for all your help.

"alexk" wrote:

> Fyrestryke,
>
> Couple of things- Has the company at least implemented RAID1 for data
> protection on the server in question?
>
> In addition, does the application itself support any form of fault
> tolerance? Multiple instances?
> The problem is that you are going to attempt to copy files from one machine
> to another immediately. There are many issues to worry about. File locking,
> last update. I would recommend looking into DFS/FRS community. Many of them
> are working on similar projects with network shares and files and using FRS.
> This has issues also that they discuss. For a perfect clone of a server-
> clustering is obviously the way to go but it is expensive.
> Let me know if this helps.
>
> alex k
>
> "Fyrestryke" wrote:
>
> > Hi Alex.
> >
> > The server in question is a file server and also stores some sort of
> > accounting software that changes rather frequently. They basically want to
> > have another server sitting there (that they already have) with the same
> > exact information that can easily be put into place with little to no
> > downtime. Right now, they have been cloning the drives (using Ghost or
> > somesuch) by cloning to a USB external drive and then cloning that back to
> > the backup server. They're wanting it to be more automated and realtime-ish.
> > I'm just wondering if there's something else that will do it (besides
> > clustering) or if I should be looking at someone else's clustering add-on
> > solution for 2K3 Standard? The best solution would be some sort of real-time
> > solution so that in the event of hardware failure, the backup server can take
> > over for the primary server with minimal downtime. Since the servers will be
> > physically setting next to each other, this only protects them against
> > technical failures as a fire/catastrophe would render them non-functional for
> > quite some time. They are doing backups in addition to wanting the duplicate
> > server.
> >
> > "alexk" wrote:
> >
> > > Fyrestryke,
> > >
> > > Out of curiousity, what type of data is stored on the server? A database or
> > > a website?
> > >
> > > Clustering is sort of an expensive solution. Its not just the upgrade to
> > > wk3 enterrpise, but also a shared hard drive solution. You may be able to
> > > just add a shared hard drive, but Microsoft usually prefers you to go with a
> > > clustered solution. If possible, you may want to look at Network Load
> > > balancing- however this tool is used for servers that share data that does
> > > not change (web server, VPN server, firewall). NLB is supported on Window
> > > 2k3 standard for free. If not you may want to go to HPs website and examine
> > > the cost of their clustered solutions.
> > >
> > > hope this helps
> > >
> > > alex
> > >
> > >
> > >
> > > "Fyrestryke" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Hi everyone.
> > > >
> > > > I have a client that wanted to mirror two identical servers running Windows
> > > > 2003 Server Standard. After a bit of research, I proposed that they should
> > > > upgrade each server to Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for the clustering
> > > > feature. This seemed like the most viable solution to me. After sending
> > > > them the estimate, the customer called back - "We don't want a quote on
> > > > clustering, we want a quote on mirroring."
> > > >
> > > > I'm thinking they're the same thing. Clustering seems to be the best
> > > > option, but is there another way to do it? I don't know if programs like
> > > > Ghost for Enterprise (or another program) will allow for live cloning of one
> > > > server to another so that should the primary server fail, the other one can
> > > > be easily switched over and resume operation with the same files, computer
> > > > name, domain, etc.
> > > >
> > > > Any suggestions? I think the cost of upgrading both servers to 2003
> > > > Enterprise is what the customer is hung up on.
> > > >
> > > > Thanks! =)

Fyrestryke,

Distributed File System has a replication feauture known as the File
Replication Service. If you have setup a series of domain controllers, you
may be familiar with FRS in that this is the technology Microsoft uses to
replicate the contents of SysVOL from one domain controller to another. You
can also implement this technology for share synchronization with DFS.

The community group is
http://www.microsoft.com/communities...&lang=en&cr=US

Good luck

alexk

"Fyrestryke" wrote:

> Yes, both servers are setup with a RAID 1 (mirrored) setup.
>
> Yes, that helps much. Can you provide me a link or some general directions
> to the DFS/FRS community as I am unfamiliar with that terminology.
>
> I'm also thinking that Clustering is the way to go. I've checked a lot of
> "server mirroring" software sites out today and have also looked at
> Clustering solutions from Veritas/Symantec as a possible add-on. I tried to
> call Veritas/Symantec for some pricing and general information, but their
> offices were closed already.
>
> Thanks for all your help.
>
> "alexk" wrote:
>
> > Fyrestryke,
> >
> > Couple of things- Has the company at least implemented RAID1 for data
> > protection on the server in question?
> >
> > In addition, does the application itself support any form of fault
> > tolerance? Multiple instances?
> > The problem is that you are going to attempt to copy files from one machine
> > to another immediately. There are many issues to worry about. File locking,
> > last update. I would recommend looking into DFS/FRS community. Many of them
> > are working on similar projects with network shares and files and using FRS.
> > This has issues also that they discuss. For a perfect clone of a server-
> > clustering is obviously the way to go but it is expensive.
> > Let me know if this helps.
> >
> > alex k
> >
> > "Fyrestryke" wrote:
> >
> > > Hi Alex.
> > >
> > > The server in question is a file server and also stores some sort of
> > > accounting software that changes rather frequently. They basically want to
> > > have another server sitting there (that they already have) with the same
> > > exact information that can easily be put into place with little to no
> > > downtime. Right now, they have been cloning the drives (using Ghost or
> > > somesuch) by cloning to a USB external drive and then cloning that back to
> > > the backup server. They're wanting it to be more automated and realtime-ish.
> > > I'm just wondering if there's something else that will do it (besides
> > > clustering) or if I should be looking at someone else's clustering add-on
> > > solution for 2K3 Standard? The best solution would be some sort of real-time
> > > solution so that in the event of hardware failure, the backup server can take
> > > over for the primary server with minimal downtime. Since the servers will be
> > > physically setting next to each other, this only protects them against
> > > technical failures as a fire/catastrophe would render them non-functional for
> > > quite some time. They are doing backups in addition to wanting the duplicate
> > > server.
> > >
> > > "alexk" wrote:
> > >
> > > > Fyrestryke,
> > > >
> > > > Out of curiousity, what type of data is stored on the server? A database or
> > > > a website?
> > > >
> > > > Clustering is sort of an expensive solution. Its not just the upgrade to
> > > > wk3 enterrpise, but also a shared hard drive solution. You may be able to
> > > > just add a shared hard drive, but Microsoft usually prefers you to go with a
> > > > clustered solution. If possible, you may want to look at Network Load
> > > > balancing- however this tool is used for servers that share data that does
> > > > not change (web server, VPN server, firewall). NLB is supported on Window
> > > > 2k3 standard for free. If not you may want to go to HPs website and examine
> > > > the cost of their clustered solutions.
> > > >
> > > > hope this helps
> > > >
> > > > alex
> > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > > > "Fyrestryke" wrote:
> > > >
> > > > > Hi everyone.
> > > > >
> > > > > I have a client that wanted to mirror two identical servers running Windows
> > > > > 2003 Server Standard. After a bit of research, I proposed that they should
> > > > > upgrade each server to Windows 2003 Enterprise Server for the clustering
> > > > > feature. This seemed like the most viable solution to me. After sending
> > > > > them the estimate, the customer called back - "We don't want a quote on
> > > > > clustering, we want a quote on mirroring."
> > > > >
> > > > > I'm thinking they're the same thing. Clustering seems to be the best
> > > > > option, but is there another way to do it? I don't know if programs like
> > > > > Ghost for Enterprise (or another program) will allow for live cloning of one
> > > > > server to another so that should the primary server fail, the other one can
> > > > > be easily switched over and resume operation with the same files, computer
> > > > > name, domain, etc.
> > > > >
> > > > > Any suggestions? I think the cost of upgrading both servers to 2003
> > > > > Enterprise is what the customer is hung up on.
> > > > >
> > > > > Thanks! =)