ML
    • Recent
    • Categories
    • Tags
    • Popular
    • Users
    • Groups
    • Register
    • Login

    Storage Question

    Scheduled Pinned Locked Moved IT Discussion
    dellstoragessdraidsatasaspercperc h310perc h710dell poweredge t320
    242 Posts 9 Posters 138.2k Views
    Loading More Posts
    • Oldest to Newest
    • Newest to Oldest
    • Most Votes
    Reply
    • Reply as topic
    Log in to reply
    This topic has been deleted. Only users with topic management privileges can see it.
    • scottalanmillerS
      scottalanmiller @BRRABill
      last edited by

      @BRRABill said:

      I was also thinking that since they will all be virtualized, it would be good to have a second server-grade box to be able to install to if the other server goes down.

      Being virtualized makes them more reliable, not less, so while having the ability to failover is good when it makes financial sense and virtualization makes this easier, it also slightly reduces the need for it.

      1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
      • J
        Jason Banned @scottalanmiller
        last edited by Jason

        @scottalanmiller said:

        @Jason said:

        Exchange is best not virtualized.

        Why? What artifact of Exchange would make it be that way? This goes against both industry knowledge and how Microsoft runs their own Exchange servers.

        I should say not virtualized in the sense that it runs on shared storage and does automated Vmotion. Exchange level failovers are much better.

        DashrenderD scottalanmillerS 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
        • BRRABillB
          BRRABill
          last edited by

          And I thought my head was spinning 2 hours ago!

          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
          • DashrenderD
            Dashrender @scottalanmiller
            last edited by

            @scottalanmiller said:

            @BRRABill said:

            For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

            What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

            Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
            • BRRABillB
              BRRABill @scottalanmiller
              last edited by

              @scottalanmiller said:

              What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

              I was going on the concept you should always have 2 DCs.

              1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
              • DashrenderD
                Dashrender @Jason
                last edited by

                @Jason said:

                @scottalanmiller said:

                @Jason said:

                Exchange is best not virtualized.

                Why? What artifact of Exchange would make it be that way? This goes against both industry knowledge and how Microsoft runs their own Exchange servers.

                I should say not virtualized in the sense that it runs on shared storage and does automated Vmotion.

                Oh, well yeah, of course it should not do that - you should be using application level reliability, not hardware based. If it's really needed.

                1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                • scottalanmillerS
                  scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                  last edited by

                  @Dashrender said:

                  @scottalanmiller said:

                  @BRRABill said:

                  For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

                  What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

                  Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

                  Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                  J DashrenderD 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                  • BRRABillB
                    BRRABill @Jason
                    last edited by

                    @Jason said:

                    Exchange is best not virtualized.

                    Actually a third party mail server (MDaemon), not Exchange.

                    1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                    • J
                      Jason Banned @scottalanmiller
                      last edited by

                      @scottalanmiller said:

                      Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                      Um, that's against Best practice and causes AD DNS issues. @Rob-Dunn would fuss at you for that one.

                      scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                      • scottalanmillerS
                        scottalanmiller @Jason
                        last edited by

                        @Jason said:

                        I should say not virtualized in the sense that it runs on shared storage and does automated Vmotion. Exchange level failovers are much better.

                        Ah yes, in that case, I totally agree. Virtualize but don't use shared storage of any sort. Application level high availability via the DAG groups is how it "should" be handled. And how Office 365 and any large environment that I know of would be handling it.

                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                        • DashrenderD
                          Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                          last edited by

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          @Dashrender said:

                          @scottalanmiller said:

                          @BRRABill said:

                          For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

                          What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

                          Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

                          Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                          Yeah, that's been less than successful for me in that past. Once the PC fails to the second or third DNS (which by itself even in Windows 7 seems to take forever) the machine will never failback. You have to reboot, or at least refresh IP to get it to go back.

                          But it's definitely an option, and one I would use in this case.

                          scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                          • scottalanmillerS
                            scottalanmiller @Jason
                            last edited by

                            @Jason said:

                            @scottalanmiller said:

                            Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                            Um, that's against Best practice and causes AD DNS issues. @Rob-Dunn would fuss at you for that one.

                            It would only cause AD issue in a case where AD has failed.... meaning AD issues are moot. It's the best practice that I am aware of for an environment without a need for AD failover.

                            1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                            • scottalanmillerS
                              scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                              last edited by

                              @Dashrender said:

                              @scottalanmiller said:

                              @Dashrender said:

                              @scottalanmiller said:

                              @BRRABill said:

                              For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

                              What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

                              Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

                              Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                              Yeah, that's been less than successful for me in that past. Once the PC fails to the second or third DNS (which by itself even in Windows 7 seems to take forever) the machine will never failback. You have to reboot, or at least refresh IP to get it to go back.

                              But it's definitely an option, and one I would use in this case.

                              You have the entries already in the PCs and they never fail back? That seems odd.

                              DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                              • DashrenderD
                                Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                last edited by

                                @scottalanmiller said:

                                @Dashrender said:

                                @scottalanmiller said:

                                @Dashrender said:

                                @scottalanmiller said:

                                @BRRABill said:

                                For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

                                What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

                                Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

                                Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                                Yeah, that's been less than successful for me in that past. Once the PC fails to the second or third DNS (which by itself even in Windows 7 seems to take forever) the machine will never failback. You have to reboot, or at least refresh IP to get it to go back.

                                But it's definitely an option, and one I would use in this case.

                                You have the entries already in the PCs and they never fail back? That seems odd.

                                Nope, they never try DNS 1 again until DNS 2 fails to 2, which then fails again back to 1.

                                scottalanmillerS JaredBuschJ 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                • BRRABillB
                                  BRRABill
                                  last edited by

                                  Well, even if I wanted to keep the backup DC, I could install Server 2012 on a desktop I have here, and at least save the cost of a second server.

                                  That wouldn't be crazy, right? Other than the license cost.

                                  scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                  • scottalanmillerS
                                    scottalanmiller @Dashrender
                                    last edited by

                                    @Dashrender said:

                                    @scottalanmiller said:

                                    @Dashrender said:

                                    @scottalanmiller said:

                                    @Dashrender said:

                                    @scottalanmiller said:

                                    @BRRABill said:

                                    For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

                                    What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

                                    Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

                                    Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                                    Yeah, that's been less than successful for me in that past. Once the PC fails to the second or third DNS (which by itself even in Windows 7 seems to take forever) the machine will never failback. You have to reboot, or at least refresh IP to get it to go back.

                                    But it's definitely an option, and one I would use in this case.

                                    You have the entries already in the PCs and they never fail back? That seems odd.

                                    Nope, they never try DNS 1 again until DNS 2 fails to 2, which then fails again back to 1.

                                    You could block 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 at the firewall temporarily to force them back I guess 😉

                                    DashrenderD 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                    • scottalanmillerS
                                      scottalanmiller @BRRABill
                                      last edited by

                                      @BRRABill said:

                                      Well, even if I wanted to keep the backup DC, I could install Server 2012 on a desktop I have here, and at least save the cost of a second server.

                                      That wouldn't be crazy, right? Other than the license cost.

                                      It's not crazy at all. Since it's free and just adding extra redundancy.

                                      DashrenderD BRRABillB 2 Replies Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                      • DashrenderD
                                        Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                        last edited by

                                        @scottalanmiller said:

                                        @Dashrender said:

                                        @scottalanmiller said:

                                        @Dashrender said:

                                        @scottalanmiller said:

                                        @Dashrender said:

                                        @scottalanmiller said:

                                        @BRRABill said:

                                        For DC redundancy. I really don't want to roll with one DC.

                                        What makes you so dependent on Active Directory? I've had AD go down for two weeks and not one user even mentioned it. That's atypical, but my point is that on its own AD is designed to be able to go offline for long periods of time with little or no impact. What's the specific risk that you are facing?

                                        Well I don't know about him, not that this is an advocate for requiring dual AD boxes, but I know that I run all internet DNS queries through my AD DNS box. If I only have one, then basically the internet is down for me as well as the AD box.

                                        Should not be. You just set your secondary and tertiary DNS entries via DHCP to Google and voila, problem fixed.

                                        Yeah, that's been less than successful for me in that past. Once the PC fails to the second or third DNS (which by itself even in Windows 7 seems to take forever) the machine will never failback. You have to reboot, or at least refresh IP to get it to go back.

                                        But it's definitely an option, and one I would use in this case.

                                        You have the entries already in the PCs and they never fail back? That seems odd.

                                        Nope, they never try DNS 1 again until DNS 2 fails to 2, which then fails again back to 1.

                                        You could block 8.8.8.8 and 8.8.4.4 at the firewall temporarily to force them back I guess 😉

                                        LOL I suppose I could.

                                        1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                        • JaredBuschJ
                                          JaredBusch @Dashrender
                                          last edited by

                                          @Dashrender said:

                                          Nope, they never try DNS 1 again until DNS 2 fails to 2, which then fails again back to 1.

                                          @Dashrender is correct here. I have seen this more than once, and this is why I refuse to put any external DNS entry in my local machines.

                                          If I have an AD environment with only a single internal DNS server I will give the router as a secondary DNS. The router itself will look to the internal DNS first and then to google second.

                                          1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 1
                                          • DashrenderD
                                            Dashrender @scottalanmiller
                                            last edited by

                                            @scottalanmiller said:

                                            @BRRABill said:

                                            Well, even if I wanted to keep the backup DC, I could install Server 2012 on a desktop I have here, and at least save the cost of a second server.

                                            That wouldn't be crazy, right? Other than the license cost.

                                            It's not crazy at all. Since it's free and just adding extra redundancy.

                                            It's not free, it's $800 and it's another box he has to maintain.

                                            scottalanmillerS 1 Reply Last reply Reply Quote 0
                                            • 1
                                            • 2
                                            • 3
                                            • 4
                                            • 5
                                            • 12
                                            • 13
                                            • 3 / 13
                                            • First post
                                              Last post