• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

DFS in mixed mode environment

mrCide

Diamond Member
Wondering if someone could maybe throw me a bone on running DFS in a mixed-mode environment. My first question I guess is about namespaces. If i got 3 servers for example, and share_s1, share_s2, share_s3, on a 2003 R2, 2003 and 2000 server, is the proper way to set things up to do it on the R2 server? ie:

2003 R2\DFSNameSpace\share_s1
2003 R2\DFSNameSpace\share_s2
2003 R2\DFSNameSpace\share_s3

I'm just trying to understand the concept. If that's right, is there a difference between setting up the namespace on the R2 server or the other 2 servers? Aside from using the most up to date O/S?

My other concern was replication. It would seem for large shares you would need both quite a bit of space and to use DFS (not FRS) for replication you'd need 2003 R2 on any machines doing replication--but this is completely separate from the namespaces I'm assuming. But could i set it up like if i had 6 servers, 2 being R2, and the rest not

2003_R2_s1
- namespace_1 ( share_2003_R2, share_2003, share_2000)
2003_R2_s2
- namespace_2 ( share_2003_R2, share_2003, share_2000)

And have the R2 servers replicating each others namespace, would that work properly? I'm not sure if i have a firm grasp on the DFS thing, or more so the changes in 2003 R2.

Any confirmations/suggestions/responses are appreciated. 🙂

 
Yes, you should set up your namespaces on the 2003 R2 servers.

Here is a link to a good overview of DFS namespaces and includes the interoperability limitations of different OS's.

As far as your replication scheme, it should work though I would upgrade to at least 2003 SP1 if possible.
 
Thanks for the reply, I'm looking over the document now--regarding the replication scheme though. what benefit would I have upgrading to 2003 SP1 if the 2003 R2 servers were doing the replication? Or, how would that affect the replication, if at all.

Again, my concept of DFS may be hazy, though i've been reading about it for awhile now--without actually getting my hands on it i'm a little slower 🙂
 
Back
Top