Windows 2k3 EE Cluster or WHAT?

S

secure.boy

Limp Gawd
Joined
Oct 22, 2007
Messages
474
I'm looking to solve this:
netvo9.jpg


As you can see here is a storage box with iSCSI Target
connected to GB switch and 2 (two) IBM x3105 Server runnig Windows 2003 EE,
+ Win 2k3 EE boxes are conected to another Core Switch,
i don't have experince with WIN 2k3 EE,
the services are AD/DHCP/DNS/file sharing for clients etc..

i want when one server fail the second to take the role (only 2 servers are now but in future there will be more boxes and more powerful.

Shuold i go with windows cluster?
OR what?
And how to config? First Cluster? or first AD?
 
You could go with windows cluster yes, windows 2003 EE supports upto 8 nodes. you would need to connect the 2 servers directly with a crossover for the failover, like heartbeat in linux. This is basicly for the nodes to ping each other to make sure they are still available. I think it would make sense the cluster first if you are starting from afresh.
 
ring.of.steel said:
You could go with windows cluster yes, windows 2003 EE supports upto 8 nodes. you would need to connect the 2 servers directly with a crossover for the failover, like heartbeat in linux. This is basicly for the nodes to ping each other to make sure they are still available. I think it would make sense the cluster first if you are starting from afresh.
Click to expand...
so you say i should have another IF for each node??
 
cluster.png


The heartbeat should have its own nic per server. i cant rermeber what they call it in windows.
 
install ee fresh on both servers, connect together like in diagram. go into cluster administrator on the master node and there is an option to create new cluster. im not sure how to actually configure the cluster in windows, have a read around.
 
ring.of.steel said:
install ee fresh on both servers, connect together like in diagram. go into cluster administrator on the master node and there is an option to create new cluster. im not sure how to actually configure the cluster in windows, have a read around.
Click to expand...

net1zb4.jpg
 
looks right but you would need only one raid disk set and it would have to be shared between the 2 servers.
 
ring.of.steel said:
looks right but you would need only one raid disk set and it would have to be shared between the 2 servers.
Click to expand...
openfiler
running on ibm x3105 and controller raid 5 (3x320gb hdd's)
i made there one volume for 100 gb that would be shared between nodes

OK?
:;)
 
yeah just set it up as iscsi over ethernet and you should be all good, 100gb may not be enough as it has to store all the data for ad.
 
you should be ok then. i was just thinking future expansion, you dont want to be stuck with no space on a shared volume used for this purpose. also if the server has a very high load i would advise using a dedicated iscsi server if you arnet allready doing this.

Sorry about the spelling i cant spell :p
 
ring.of.steel said:
you should be ok then. i was just thinking future expansion, you dont want to be stuck with no space on a shared volume used for this purpose. also if the server has a very high load i would advise using a dedicated iscsi server if you arnet allready doing this.

Sorry about the spelling i cant spell :p
Click to expand...
Spec of hardware:
2x IBM x3105 AMD Opty 1212, 2 gb ram, 80 GB HDD, 1-broadcom GB lan integrated,
and dual intel gb Nic,
1xIBM x3105 AMD opty 1212, 1 gb ram 80 gb for OS and swap;)
and raid controller with 3x320 gb hdd
and a bunch of cisco WS-CE500G-12TC
 
you should be all set to go then. i would of thought a better way to do this would be to drop the cluster and use 2 seperate servers, use the second one for backup ad dns dhcp etc.
 
what i meant was you could have 2 seperate servers. just give clustering a go and see if that works out for you.
 
You can have a primary and backup domain controller for AD, DNS, DHCP, etc, and then add them both to a cluster for file sharing. It is easy to impliment once you've done it once and is pretty much bulletproof for your requirements.

This will give you a single file store for your users, full redundancy and will avoid replication issues of DFS (not to mention the requirements of storing two sets of data.

DFS is great for storing the same data in two sites seperated by WAN links, but isn't really the tool to use when you are looking for redundancy in the same site.
 
Wow, I never saw this thread but it's in the wrong section. Anyway, it may be way late since this was 3 months ago but no need to cluster. I mean, you can if you want but would be way easier to just make both boxes domain controllers. Run DHCP on one of them, with the second setup and authorized, just not active. Run DNS on both and use DFS for the shares. The plus to this setup would also be load balancing. You'd be sharing the load between the 2 servers, rather than just having one sit there and do pretty much nothing. You'll still have to make both DC's since AD doesn't run on the cluster, so both will still authenticate users/workstations in a cluster.
 
no it's no late
but there are some new machines
more powerful than x3105
also storage is ds4xxx i don't remeber
 
I'd say it makes more sense to not setup a cluster. You can't run AD or DNS on a cluster. You can run DHCP and File Sharing but there are better ways of doing it.

If you make both servers DC's, you've got AD setup for load balancing/high availability there. Setup both servers to run AD integrated DNS (which, odds are you'll make one of them a DNS server durning the setup anyway unless you already have another AD server hosting DNS somewhere else) which will make DNS load balanced/highly available.

Next up, setup DHCP on both boxes. You have 2 choices here, setup, configure and authorize both for service, but leave one disabled unless/until you need it. Or setup both and split the scope between the two. Microsoft will tell you to follow an 80/20 rule when doing that, which you can find info on with a quick google lookup. But that way, you'll have 2 DHCP servers giving out addresses and if one goes down, the other will be there to pickup. If your DHCP server with the 80% dies, you'll still have that box with 20% handing out, then just a quick edit of the scope while you bring the other back online.

Last, you could setup DFS for the file sharing which again would be load balanced/highly available between the 2 servers. If you get more/newer servers, add them into the DFS namespace and they'll pickup with the others.

By going this route, all your servers will be put to work, not just sitting around waiting for the primary to failover. And if you add more servers, you can spread the load across them, instead of just having to buy bigger and faster boxes.


That's my $0.02 though.
 
LittleMe said:
I'd say it makes more sense to not setup a cluster. You can't run AD or DNS on a cluster. You can run DHCP and File Sharing but there are better ways of doing it.

If you make both servers DC's, you've got AD setup for load balancing/high availability there. Setup both servers to run AD integrated DNS (which, odds are you'll make one of them a DNS server durning the setup anyway unless you already have another AD server hosting DNS somewhere else) which will make DNS load balanced/highly available.

Next up, setup DHCP on both boxes. You have 2 choices here, setup, configure and authorize both for service, but leave one disabled unless/until you need it. Or setup both and split the scope between the two. Microsoft will tell you to follow an 80/20 rule when doing that, which you can find info on with a quick google lookup. But that way, you'll have 2 DHCP servers giving out addresses and if one goes down, the other will be there to pickup. If your DHCP server with the 80% dies, you'll still have that box with 20% handing out, then just a quick edit of the scope while you bring the other back online.

Last, you could setup DFS for the file sharing which again would be load balanced/highly available between the 2 servers. If you get more/newer servers, add them into the DFS namespace and they'll pickup with the others.

By going this route, all your servers will be put to work, not just sitting around waiting for the primary to failover. And if you add more servers, you can spread the load across them, instead of just having to buy bigger and faster boxes.


That's my $0.02 though.
Click to expand...

can u tell me how i mean every point how to do
pls

btw thanks for your replay
 
Not to get picky, but I would suggest you just nip over to the MS site, or look at the documentation that is with the help files on your servers, it will go into much more depth than anyone here repeating and paraphrasing, the advice is good and gives you all the keywords you wuold require for a search, and in reading more 'proper' documentation your understanding will be a lot fuler, and more likely be able to fix an issue if something goes wrong, rather than keeping your 60 users waiting because someone has not replied to your forum post!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top