Server 2003 Server Questions (Situations)

Z

zacdl

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Feb 12, 2007
Messages
2,012
The first... is clustering.
How easy (if possible, as I have never clustered) is it to basically just mirror two servers?
I can setup Server 2003 as well as all the apps... I just need all the data to be mirrored, in case one goes down- the other takes over.

The second isn't really a Server 2003 question, but setting up a Web Server.
I figure I could run Linux on it. How would I situate this Web Server with respect to the intranet/internet?
 
Clustering is a very specific topic with specific requirements and caveats. One of the big caveats is you need a shared storage system between the nodes of the cluster. Another is, you really to have a cluster-aware application. You can cluster a non-cluster-aware application, but it's more of a pain than it is usually worth. Two big cluster aware applications are Exchange and SQL. I have heard of some test cluster set ups using Virtual Server or VMware, but I haven't ever configured a cluster using either of those products. You probably could find a guide to this somewhere on the internet.

As far as a web server is concerned, what are you trying to accomplish? I prefer Linux+Apache+MySQL+PHP (LAMP) web servers, but IIS is required for many Windows-centric solutions. I use both depending on what I am trying to accomplish.
 
Basic setup for a cluster with 2 servers would be to have 2 servers running enterprise(std will not cut it) and have a sharred data drive setup, either NAS, SAN, or SCSI.

Cheaper way would be scsi or sas.

Whats the network setup your trying to do? How many users, what hardware do they allready have, what apps is the server going to be running etc?
 
MorfiusX said:
Clustering is a very specific topic with specific requirements and caveats.
Click to expand...
Like a multi-core aware program I guess that is able to utilize it.
I wasn't aware of that, guess it nukes that idea, other than having backup hardware on hand.

As far as a web server is concerned, what are you trying to accomplish? I prefer Linux+Apache+MySQL+PHP (LAMP) web servers, but IIS is required for many Windows-centric solutions. I use both depending on what I am trying to accomplish.
Click to expand...
Well, Linux would look better on paper as far as cost goes.
It would just be serving up some webpages, as well as communicating with my internal server. Basically, a user (through logon information through a program) can request up documents from the internal server. Those documents are then cached on the web server, so the internal server only has to serve each up once...
At any rate, I think Linux would work just fine. I just don't know what I need to actually make it usable to the web. How do I configure it with an IP address and such, being that I would probably need a statically assigned?
Would the Web server physically sit in my internal network as far as where it is situated within cabling and switches?

It will only serve about 20 people internally (the internal server), so specs aren't too big of an issue. The server hardware we will have running it can handle the users.
The webserver just needs to handle the burden of webpage requests- hence why I need a dedicated server for that. Not sure what kind of bandwidth I am looking at (little at this point), as once I get this system up, the webpage will be more heavily used.

LoStMaTt said:
Why not just set up mirrored hard drives in the server you already have?
Click to expand...
Probably because that only provides a backup system for the hard drives- none of the other hardware.
 
You could always look into this

With the Infrastructure Enterprise Edition of VMware you put your server os in a virtual machine(supporting up to 4 cpus in a virtual machine) and run it on top of the vmware. You can have multiple servers in a pool running the virtual machines where if a server dies the virtual servers stay up running on the other servers. If you really wanted to make it interesting you could cluster windows enterprise virtual servers together on top of a few real servers running ESX.

Mind you Infrastructure enterprise is expensive.
 
There are two type of clustering when it comes to server 2003. Network Load balancing. usually used for front end web servers. and failover clustering. used for SQL, Wxhange, file and print services.

failover clustering requires a shared storage system as stated which doesn't have to cost that much you can get a fiber setup from HP with a good amount of storage for less that 20K.

NLB i beleive you can have the storage local to each server. I am not 100% sure on this I only use failover clustering myself.

If you looking do cluster apps that don't have native cluster support it will take avanced knowledge to make the system run like it should. MSCS only replicates the cluster database evrything out side of with would have to be configure using checkpoint files for registry replication between nodes.

Feel free to ask any questions I build and supported File,Print, and SQL clusters.
 
Alright, I guess Clustering is out the Window for now. I guess alternative hardware is the only other thing I could use for a bit more failover.

Still not sure on the Web Server, is it cheaper to host your own in the long run, or not?
I'm thinking paying for an upgraded connection (speeds, static IPs), new hardware, battery backup, etc would make it more expensive.
 
it seems like people are looking to spend an awful lot of money on serving document files off http... am i missing something here?
 
It's a $45,000 program, this is just one portion of it.
The problem is the company doesn't like Yahoo hosting (for whatever reason), and doesn't want to set it up for us (If I'm paying for it- they had better darn do it).
That's when the issue of hosting our own stuff came up. Don't know if it would be cheaper to move to another webhost, or just serve up own own stuff.
 
ahh.. nevermind then :) maybe colocation is a potential solution? cheaper than trying to bring in a "real" internet link.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top