SitePoint Sponsor

User Tag List

Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Moving to W2k3

  1. #1
    ALT.NET - because we need it silver trophybronze trophy dhtmlgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,836
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    Moving to W2k3

    We've been having problems with our server at work since Wednesday, its a W2K machine. While fixing this, we've been told to look at getting another server in to, as a backup.

    I suggested we get the other server in, and use Windows 2003 for load balancing.

    But I've got a few questions:

    Has anyone deployed W2K3 at all? With more than one and used load balacing
    Is there any performance impact? Postive and negitive
    If one of the machines goes down, will the other one still keep going?
    Is there any good resources on getting started? Besides the MS site.

    Also, because we want to minimise downtime, we're considering setting up the new machine inhouse, then sending it to our ISP (www.red.net) and when thats in place, take the other server offline publically and configure it across remotly and then linking them up. Is this the best course of action?


  2. #2
    ALT.NET - because we need it silver trophybronze trophy dhtmlgod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2001
    Location
    Scotland
    Posts
    4,836
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Anyone?

  3. #3
    Idler. Chazzy's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2004
    Location
    Uk
    Posts
    336
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Sorry. I havent used it mate..

  4. #4
    SitePoint Zealot
    Join Date
    Feb 2004
    Location
    Durham, NE England, UK
    Posts
    127
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    i have win2k3 enterprise running here as my house file, web and multimedia server, so i hae a good knowledge and id be willing to help ya out


    yea windows 2k3 comes with load balencingbuilt in, i dont kno how it works tho since i cant afford to buy 2 licenses or another server
    www.dmpdesign.net - cheap web design for everyone
    Visit one of my websites - Click Here
    contact me on msn messenger - steve1030_uk@hotmail.com
    or yahoo messenger - djsteve1030

  5. #5
    SitePoint Addict
    Join Date
    Nov 2001
    Posts
    213
    Mentioned
    0 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Forgive my ignorance, but does W2K3 come with load balancing software? I'm a *nix guy.

    Anyway, since Windows 2000 doesn't seem to be your problem, what are you upgrading for? Is it just to get load balancing? Is the only reason why you want to load balance to gain fault tolerance rather than to increase load capacity?

    What we use on our web network at work is a ServerIron XL (http://www.foundrynetworks.com/produ...ron/index.html). It's a layer 4 switch that load balances our three servers. While we use it mainly for increased performance under heavy load, it also stops sending traffic to a crashed server. It does an HTTP GET to detect if a server is up or not. A ServerIron will be many times more reliable than W2K3 because it's a hardware solution. It's as reliable as any other switch.

    If it's not a 24/7 critical server, keeping a hot standby server might be good enough. Depending on the nature of the server you may be able to put a cache server/device in front of it, which could cache web pages, commonly used shared files and other stuff (different devices for each). Cisco has hardware that will do this. A Cache device would give you some fault tolerance for whatever data is cached as well as improve performance.

    Again, depending on the nature of the server, setting up a round-robin DNS between multiple servers might suit your needs. The BIND config for this is easy.

    About your ISP plan... are you trying to get fault tolerant bandwidth? I don't understand your need to co-locate one server at your ISP while keeping the other in-house. I assume you'll have an IPSec tunnel from your ISP to your corporate LAN (or is this not a private server?). This seems to me to be a more unstable situation than you are currently in. It would only provide gains if this is a public server, like a web server, and then you'd have to do the load balancing from a third location to prevent one location from bringing down both.

    If you need more specific help, post what kind of server this is (web, mail, file, etc), if it should be publically available or just a corporate server and if you're just after fault tolerance or also additional performance.


Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •