Microsoft DFS in Windows 2000 server vs 2003 server

D

dabomb

2[H]4U
Joined
Apr 12, 2001
Messages
2,393
The only information I could find comparing the two was in this article here:

http://www.windowsnetworking.com/articles_tutorials/Windows2003-Distributed-File-System.html

Windows 2003 offers a revamped version of the Distributed File System found in Windows 2000, which has been improved to better performance and add additional fault tolerance, load balancing and reduced use of network bandwidth. It also comes with a powerful set of command-line scripting tools which can be used to make administrative backup and restoration tasks of the DFS namespaces easier. The client windows operating system consists of a DFS client which provides additional features as well as caching.
Click to expand...



Does anybody know a little more about the benefits of using a win2k3 server? Do all servers involved with the DFS root have to be win2k3 also? Most likely I will be using win2k server to set up a DFS domain root, but I can possibly get licences for 2k3.
 
You need 2k3 AD to get the new features when using a domain DFS root. You can setup DFS on a standalone server, but it's only going to be for a single namespace on that box, not replicated in AD. Depending on what you are doing you should be fine with Win2k DFS. I don't use DFS for fault tolerance or load balancing, only for a single namespace. Win2k domain root works fine for that.
 
bigshooter said:
You need 2k3 AD to get the new features when using a domain DFS root. You can setup DFS on a standalone server, but it's only going to be for a single namespace on that box, not replicated in AD. Depending on what you are doing you should be fine with Win2k DFS. I don't use DFS for fault tolerance or load balancing, only for a single namespace. Win2k domain root works fine for that.
Click to expand...

You don't have to be in 2003 Native AD mode to get the benefits, only 2000 compatible AD mode. You just have to have your schema upgraded to 2003 and be running 2003 on the server hosting the domain DFS to get the additional benefits.

2003 R2 takes DFS to a whole different level, especially if you are using replication.

If all you are really wanting to do is make a single location for you users to go to find all your shared folders and you aren't wanting to use DFS replication, the Windows 2000 version should be just fine as per bigshotters recommendation.
 
bigshooter said:
Wouldn't you consider runnign ADPREP and extending the schema as having Win2k3 AD?
Click to expand...

Not at all. A Windows 2003 mode AD changes the encryption and security features of the AD as well as replication behavior and lots of other things. You can no longer have Windows 2000 DCs. Clients that are pre-2000 can no longer authenticate, even if the AD client software add-ons from MS for that platform are installed.

An active directory can have the schema of a Windows 2003 AD and be running on a Windows 2003 server (my config at work is like this, we have some gas chromatagraph equipment that would cost several hundred k to replace hooked up to Windows 95 machines, not in the current budget to replace), but be running in Windows 2000 mode. This is not a Windows 2003 mode AD.

It could be moved to Windows 2003 AD mode at any time, but all the DCs would have to be running Windows 2003.

DFS just needs a 2003 schema for all the advanced features to work though.
 
nessus said:
You don't have to be in 2003 Native AD mode to get the benefits, only 2000 compatible AD mode. You just have to have your schema upgraded to 2003 and be running 2003 on the server hosting the domain DFS to get the additional benefits.

2003 R2 takes DFS to a whole different level, especially if you are using replication.

If all you are really wanting to do is make a single location for you users to go to find all your shared folders and you aren't wanting to use DFS replication, the Windows 2000 version should be just fine as per bigshotters recommendation.
Click to expand...
Our domain controllers are on 2000 server, would creating the domain root on a 2003 R2 box still work with this setup?

We would like a fault tolerent file server system, utilizing 2 servers so we can shut one down for maintenence and leave the other running for the users. It seems like 2003 R2 on one server is our best bet, and 2000 server is fine for the other one if the above situation would work out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top