| Author |
 Topic  |
|
|
rrue
Here To Stay
150 Posts
Status: offline |
 Posted - 05/21/2012 : 1:09:55 PM
|
Hello All,
This might be better suited to the storage forum but I don't see much activity there and I'm hoping to reach someone with some experience with this.
We run a large 2K8R2 storage server that I've posted about here in the past. It's connected via FC to a SAN that is pretty much full. The storage server is slated to go away someday but in the meantime we've squeaked out some space by also mounting some iSCSI LUNs and migrating a few subfolders of the main data volume to the iSCSI "disks," and then replacing the folders with junction points to the separate disks. Ugly but all we had at the time.
Now we've brought some more storage online but it's not iSCSI, it's CIFS. I'd like to replace those junction points to "local
disks" with links to remote UNC paths using standalone DFS.
I've installed standalone DFS to the server but I'm hitting two major points that make me hesitate to move forward.
* The main data folder is actually presented via two shares to support some legacy apps that have hard-coded UNCs (I know, I know). On a test server, I can replace the main CIFS share with a DFS Namespace, but I don't seem to be able to create a second Namespace with a different name pointed to the same folder. I get an error that "The specified path is invalid." I've tried creating a junction point to the main volume with the name of the second namespace, no good. I've tried creating a second CIFS share of the folder with the modified name, and I can browse the second share and see the DFS linked folders (see below) but can't open them from that path. Does DFS not support multiple presentations of the same folder?
* On the test server I can "Add Folders" to the one namespace I could create, and successfully link remote UNC's as folders. But before I do that in production, does anyone know what differences there are between a good old-fashioned CIFS share and a Standalone DFS Namespace? For example, I know that Linux clients and pre-Lion Macs won't be able to follow those links, but will they be able to mount the Root? (I'll test that today in any case).
This is all supposed to be temporary: I'm trying to avoid necessitating our users to change their paths/connections during this phase as they'd just have to do so again when we bring our next generation storage online (toward the end of this year).
I've done some reading, some searching, and cruised the forums here and found little mention of anyone using DFS at all, let alone much deep discussion. Has anyone had any experience with this?
Hope to hear from you,
rrue
Seattle
|
|
|
rrue
Here To Stay
150 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 1:43:11 PM
|
OK, tested against the one root namespace I was able to create and it appears to behave just like a CIFS share. I can mount via CIFS to a Linux box, for example, in addition to Lion and Windows 7. Consistent with expectations, from the Linux client I can only hit the root and its "real" subfolders, not the DFS links.
So I'm down to the remaining question. How do I (or can I) mount a second namespace to an already presented folder, with a different name? So far I've tried just creating a second share to the folder that's presented, and creating a junction point to the root folder that's presented. Neither lets me create a second namespace, and both result in a folder where I can't open any linked subfolder. |
 |
|
|
wkasdo
Administrator
Netherlands
7424 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 3:09:08 PM
|
Hi Randy,
From what I understand reading your post you seem to be adding files or folders directly to the root? That's not the idea. At the root level, you add only subfolders, and you do that from the DFS UI -- never from Explorer. To the subfolder, you either add more folders, or targets.
I tried to repro your problem. I created:
\\s4\standalone\folder -> \\dc10\tools
\\s4\standalone2\folder -> \\dc10\tools
with no conflict. After that, I could browse both namespaces locally and remotely. So, you are probably doing something else :-)
- S4 : member server
- standalone : dfs root name
- folder : dfs folder
- \\dc10\tools : target is remote share.
> and cruised the forums here and found little mention of anyone using DFS at all
There's some, just not many questions. Just about any enterprise I visit uses DFS in some form. |
Make it as simple as you can, but not simpler -- Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
wkasdo
Administrator
Netherlands
7424 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 3:13:42 PM
|
> good old-fashioned CIFS share and a Standalone DFS Namespace?
A DFS namespace is not an ordinary shared folder. It's a starting point for further referrals. It should contain no data by itself. The data is in the DFS subfolders, which either have targets directly, or more subfolders. |
Make it as simple as you can, but not simpler -- Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
rrue
Here To Stay
150 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 3:21:26 PM
|
You're describing almost what I need. What I need is a way to set up:
\\s4\standalone -> \\dc10\tools
\\s4\standalone2 -> \\dc10\tools
And that "tools" folder will then contain ~240 subfolders, most of which are actual folders, but a few of which will need to be DFS Links to other UNC's.
Is this possible? |
|
|
|
wkasdo
Administrator
Netherlands
7424 Posts
Status: offline |
|
|
rrue
Here To Stay
150 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 05/21/2012 : 4:52:26 PM
|
The content I'm finding related to DFS Consolidation Root suggests it's primarily for Domain DFS and MS-based Dynamic DNS (we run different DNS), with lots of scary wizards moving server names and DFS redirects around. Yeek.
I see two likely options at this point. Either drop one of the two existing CIFS shares and use standalone DFS to present, or give up some of the SAN space that I was trying to free up, move the iSCSI LUN's to the SAN, and still have those LUNs appear to the Windows server as physical disks. Keep using local junction points, and have more free space on the new NAS to accommodate other needs. Right now I'm leaning toward option two.
Appreciate the input...
rrue |
Edited by - rrue on 05/21/2012 4:53:27 PM |
|
|
|
wkasdo
Administrator
Netherlands
7424 Posts
Status: offline |
Posted - 05/22/2012 : 07:20:00 AM
|
| It's the KB you need, not the consolidation wizard, but never mind that. I agree it's too complicated. Option two makes the most sense for my 2 cts. |
Make it as simple as you can, but not simpler -- Albert Einstein |
|
|
|
aed
Honorable But Hopeless Addict
USA
1213 Posts
Status: offline |
|
| |
Topic |
|
Standalone DFS 2008
