File Server Active/Passive to Active/Active

[Eric Woodland]

All-

Here is our current scenario:

W2K3FS01A-Node A - Active
W2K3FS01B-Nobe B - Passive

Cluster Group Configuration:
[Cluster Group]
Contents: IP Address (1)
Network Name (1)
Physical Disks (3) Quorum, VOL1, VOL2 [Attached from the SAN]

The issue is this:

This cluster was implemented by an employee who is no longer with our
company. Long story short, W2K3FS01A is our active node. It is servicing ALL
requests for our user home directories AND departmental shared data. It is
running between 95-100% utilization continuously all day long.
What I would like to do:
Create an Active/Active cluster with W2K3FS01A & W2K3FS01B distributing the
load evenly. I would also like to add a third server as a passive node that
can handle the load if A or B fail over.

How can I migrate from this Active/Passive to an Active/Active cluster?

Thanks MUCH in advance,

Woody

[Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]]

Ok, you can do this. Add the third node. Make sure it's the exact same
hardware, BIOS, firmware, configuration, etc. Join it to the cluster.

Create a new group within the cluster. Create a new IP Address resource,
Network Name resource, and move VOL2 and it's shared resource into that new
group. Move this group to node B :)

Those are the simple steps, if you need more just ask :)

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training

"Eric Woodland" <EricWo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:10AF5F3A-8460-41AB...@microsoft.com...

[MarkFox]

Eric,

You may also want to try to identify what is causing the high CPU. If you
are running Antivirus or some other third party app, this may be causing the
problem. We had an instance on two Win2k clusters that were running an
older version of NAV with no problems for years, then suddenly the access to
the group and file shares was crawling. We turned off Real Time File
Protection and the problem went away. It looks like a new definition file or
scan engine may have caused the problem. Not sure how many shares/users you
have but we have approx 3000 shares on each 2 node cluster running
active/passive and response is fine. I would hate to see you go through all
the work to build and add a third cluster node just to find you may still
have the same problem.
--
Mark

[Eric Woodland]

Rod,

The main concern is that we do not want to add an additional network name.
Higher-ups would prefer to keep the same namespace W2K3FS01 and divide the
traffic up between 2 nodes. Is this possible?

Thx,

Woody

[Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]]

Same Network Name, same group. Same group, same Node. Same Node, same old
problem. Change is required :)

Ask management if they want it fixed or not?

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website
http://www.msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training

"Eric Woodland" <EricWo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:C9A12FC4-80A8-423F...@microsoft.com...

[Eric Woodland]

Rod-

The only other solution to this problem would be to create a DFS root and
direct it at the separate shares on each node, correct? We aren't at a level
where that is feasible yet, so i'll have to discuss the option of a second
network name. Thanks for the quick response, they're breathing down my neck
over here!

[Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]]

DFS Domain Root can be shared on the non-clustered computers. Works great.
Stand-alone DFS is cluster aware.

I know how you feel, they are always breathing down my neck - I can't sleep
the clowns will eat me!

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website

http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog

http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training

"Eric Woodland" <EricWo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:6BEB1316-C4E3-4E03...@microsoft.com...

[Eric Woodland]

Rod,

Here is what I am thinking of implementing:

[W2K3FS01]
// \\
[DFSROOT-USERS] [DFSROOT-DEPTDATA]
[W2K3FS01A]
[W2K3FS01B]
F:\:Users
G:\Dept
[W2K3FS01C]
Passive-Failover Node

My only issue is that if the bridehead fails, there is no redundancy for it
to failover with. Is it possible to NLB or Cluster the server holding the DFS
root?

Also, when the client is redirected to the file share on W2K3FS01A/B will
the traffic between the client make a path from W2K3FS01 => W2K3FS01A or is
there a redirect that sends them directly to W2K3FS01A and that's it.

If you have a minute, could you give me a ring? Email me @
DJWoo...@Hotmail.com

Thanks!

Woody

In this scenario the 'bridgehead' W2K3FS01 will store 2 DFS roots. Each will
point to their respective node hosting USER or DEPT data.

[Rodney R. Fournier [MVP]]

DFS Stand Alone is Cluster aware. DFS Domain Root already can be replicated
around the domain and is site aware. What you have layed out is not bad,
just replicate it to another server :) ( [DFSROOT-USERS] &
[DFSROOT-DEPTDATA])

Cheers,

Rod

MVP - Windows Server - Clustering
http://www.nw-america.com - Clustering Website

http://msmvps.com/clustering - Blog
http://www.clusterhelp.com - Cluster Training

"Eric Woodland" <EricWo...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message

news:6C6557AB-A762-4DB3...@microsoft.com...