Move file server in DFS

i have an older w2k3 file server that holds my DFS namespace. I have a second DFS server that is w2k8. I want to move my all of my files to the new server. is replication the best path or robocopy? I also want to attempt
this as seemless as possible. The domain is w2k8R2 functional level. Thanks.
You can do both. Robocopy may be a bit faster however. Here's a simple step-by-step guide on how to migrate DFS namespace to another box. See:
Migrate DFS to another server
http://blogs.technet.com/b/askds/archive/2008/01/15/migrating-your-dfs-namespaces-in-three-sorta-easy-steps.aspx
Robocopy is pretty much straightforward...
Good luck!
StarWind VSAN [Virtual SAN] clusters Hyper-V without SAS, Fibre Channel, SMB 3.0 or iSCSI, uses Ethernet to mirror internally mounted SATA disks between hosts.

Similar Messages

High availability for file server and exchange with 2 physical servers

Dear Experts,
I have 2 physical server with local disks only. I want to setup below on same with high availability, please advise best prossible options. We will be using windows 2012 R2 Server..
1. Domain controller
2. Exchange 2013
As of now I am thinking of setting up below:
1. Install Hyper-v on both and create 3 VM on each as
-On Host A- 1 VM for DC, 1 VM for File server with DFS namespace and replication for file server HA and 1 VM for Exchange 2013 with CAS/MBX with DAG and DNS RR for Exchange HA
-On Host B - 1 VM for ADC, 1 VM for File server DFS member for above and 1 VM for Exchange 2013 CAS/MBX with DAG member
I have read on internet about new features called scale out file server (SoFS) in Windows 2012 Server but not sure that will be preferred for file sharing.
Any advise will be highly appreciated..
Thanks for the help in advance..
Best regards,

Dear Experts,
I have 2 physical server with local disks only. I want to setup below on same with high availability, please advise best prossible options. We will be using windows 2012 R2 Server..
1. Domain controller
2. Exchange 2013
As of now I am thinking of setting up below:
1. Install Hyper-v on both and create 3 VM on each as
-On Host A- 1 VM for DC, 1 VM for File server with DFS namespace and replication for file server HA and 1 VM for Exchange 2013 with CAS/MBX with DAG and DNS RR for Exchange HA
-On Host B - 1 VM for ADC, 1 VM for File server DFS member for above and 1 VM for Exchange 2013 CAS/MBX with DAG member
I have read on internet about new features called scale out file server (SoFS) in Windows 2012 Server but not sure that will be preferred for file sharing.
Any advise will be highly appreciated..
Thanks for the help in advance..
Best regards,
DFS is by far the best way to implement any sort of file server. Because a) failover is not fully transparent and does not happen always (say not on copy ) b) DFS cannot replicate open files so if you edit a big file and have node rebooted you're going to
lose ALL transactions/updates you've applied c) actually slows down the config. See:
DFS for failover
http://help.globalscape.com/help/wafs3/using_microsoft_dfs_for_failover.htm
DFS FAQ
http://technet.microsoft.com/library/cc773238(WS.10).aspx
(check "open files" point here)
DFS Performance
http://blogs.technet.com/b/filecab/archive/2009/08/22/windows-server-dfs-namespaces-performance-and-scalability.aspx
SoFS a) requires shared storage to run and you don't have one b) does not support generic workloads
(only Hyper-V and SQL Server) and c) technically makes sense to expand SAS JBOD or existing FC SAN to numerous Hyper-V clients over 10 GbE w/o need to invest money into SAS switches and HBAs and FC HBAs and new licenses FC ports. Making long story short:
SoFS is NOT YOUR CASE.
SoFS Overview
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh831349.aspx
http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=12786
http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=12786
For now you need to find some shared storage to be a back end for your hypevisor config (SAS JBOD from supported list, virtual SAN from multiple vendors like for example StarWind see below, make sure you review ALL the vendors) and then you create a failover
SMB 3.0 share for your file server workload. See:
Clustered Storage Spaces over SAS JBOD
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj822937.aspx
Virtual SAN from inexpensive SATA and no SAS or FC
http://www.starwindsoftware.com/native-san-for-hyper-v-free-edition
Failover
SMB File Server in Windows Server 2012 R2
http://www.starwindsoftware.com/configuring-ha-file-server-on-windows-server-2012-for-smb-nas
Fault
tolerant file server on just a pair of nodes
http://www.starwindsoftware.com/ns-configuring-ha-file-server-for-smb-nas
For Exchange you use SMB share from above for a file share witness and use DAG. See:
Exchange DAG
Good luck! Hope this helped :)
StarWind VSAN [Virtual SAN] clusters Hyper-V without SAS, Fibre Channel, SMB 3.0 or iSCSI, uses Ethernet to mirror internally mounted SATA disks between hosts.

DFS New Setup migrating from 2003 R2 file server to 2012 Server STD

We currently have a 2003 R2 flat file server with multiple layers of nested network shares with over 2.5TB of data. We want to migrate to DFS on 2012 Server standard version with deduplication enabled. We have never worked with DFS and deduplication and
any white paper on DFS and deduplication would be greatly appreciated. Not finding anything on DFS step by step for 2012 and in particular migrating from 2003 file share to 2012 server DFS.

Thank you for the URL to your DFS write up. This was very helpful in my research of DFS. I have a couple of questions. Do I have to start DFS with two servers? I completely understand why you should have more than one server in the DFS pool (high
availability) but is it necessary? Also after setting up the two 2012 Servers with DFS, namespaces, and new shares managed by DFS manager, how do we migrate (move or copy) the existing shares to new server without losing the permissions? From what I've read
in your write-up all end users with have read and write permissions and admins have full. Also is there a best practice on how nested the shares should be setup within DFS? From looking at your write up the shares are one folder deep only. At this
company I'm migrating from a file server with shares 3-8 layers deep build up over the last 20 years.

One USB HD with Multiple AEBS, Move from NAS/File Server

Okay to explain my question I'll describe what i want to do. If this is possible i would buy 2 airport extremes, and one USB HD. I would then use the USB HD to do TimeMachine backups to an Airdisk. I would like to then be able to take the USB HD with me when i go to work, and be able to do Airdisk backups there, having connected the same USB drive to different TC or AEBS, and afterwards, obviously bring it home and continue doing backups there. Is this at all possible? Has anyone tried? Can i at least browse my backups after having connected them to a different AEBS?
Another question is, up until now i have been using an "unsupported" backup to my Linux File Server over netatalk. I did this, mainly because i have raid, and my data can't really be lost this way. Is there anyway to move this backup to an Airdisk? I read something here about different formats being used to save data on different types of backups. The share is on a partition that is formated ext3, if that helps at all. Oh and the backup itself is a sparseimage.
Thanks for your replies,
Dmitry
Message was edited by: Russo017

Okay to explain my question I'll describe what i want to do. If this is possible i would buy 2 airport extremes, and one USB HD. I would then use the USB HD to do TimeMachine backups to an Airdisk. I would like to then be able to take the USB HD with me when i go to work, and be able to do Airdisk backups there, having connected the same USB drive to different TC or AEBS, and afterwards, obviously bring it home and continue doing backups there. Is this at all possible?
It should work fine, but you may run out of space quickly if you back up multiple computers to the disk.

Which role do I need DFS or File server on fail over cluster server 2012 R2?

what I want to achieve is that I want to share all my user data files in a central location and to be highly available all the time whether it's a general share or folder redirection data. BUT I'm a bit confused; I have fail over cluster set-up
on server 2012, now I would like to add DFS as a role but than we have another role called File server and virtually it does the same thing as DFS? Means it creates a namespace share that can be access even one of the nodes goes down. Now I am thinking is
that DFS does the replication between two physical location but fail over cluster works slightly differently and with file server it pretty much does the same thing except for replicating data from one drive to another. Now what do you suggest I do or
did I get the concept wrong like a noob?

DFS and Failover Clustering for file shares provides a similar end result for file access, but they are significantly different implementations.
Clustering provides high availability to files by presenting shared access to set a files served from a cluster. With 2012 R2 Microsoft added the ability to create a Scale-out File Server that even allows all nodes of the cluster to server access to
the files for a higher level of performance and other great things. Bottom line with Failover Clusters for files is that there is a single copy of the file presented from the cluster.
DFS on the other hand provides high availability to files by presenting multiple copies of the file by making a copy in two or more locations and presenting a naming space that allows access to the file through any of the network paths. DFS works very
well for files that are primarily read-only. When you get into a situation where there is a lot of updating of the shared files, DFS is not a very good solution. There are ways to implement DFS for read/write files, but it generally requires a
good knowledge of how the files are used and how you want to manage them.
The key to answering your question comes in your first sentence "I want to share all my user data files in a central location and to be highly available all the time". My initial reaction to this is that central location means Failover Cluster
- there is only a single copy of the file. However, "all the time" can be compromised by network failures to the central site. Remote sites would not have access if they can't access the central site. DFS provides the ability to
have copies remotely, but then if you allow updating at multiple sites, you have to manage the merging of the changes, among other things.
. : | : . : | : . tim

Copy/move file on application server

Hey guys,
is there an easy way to copy/move a file from one directory on application server to an other directory? I know i could use the commands OPEN DATASET and so on. Is there an other way to do this via a function module?
thx,
M.
Moderator Message: Please search before posting, this has been discussed many times in the forum. All points unassigned
Edited by: Suhas Saha on Aug 13, 2011 10:28 PM

Hi ,
As you know about the open dataset way of doing this ...You need another way and that will be as mentioned in the link below .....
[Copy one file to another on application server |Re: Move file from one folder to another floder in application server;
Hope it helps ....
Thanks,
Anjaneya
Edited by: Anjaneya Bhardwaj on Aug 13, 2011 1:02 PM

HT3678 If I download a .mov file from gmail, I am not able to open the file. I reinstalled QuickTime 7.6.6, still unable to open the file. If I download the same file from another mail server I have no trouble. What is gmail doing to my file?

If I download a .mov file from gmail, I am not able to open the file. I reinstalled QuickTime 7.6.6, still unable to open the file. If I download the same file from another mail server I have no trouble. What is gmail doing to my file?

Also i have reinstalled the reader9 two times and tried with reader8 also but in both the cases same problem.
it would be gr8 help if someone can help.

How to check DFS replication status in windows 2008 r2 file server

Hi,
I have created File server DFS namespace between 2 windows 2008 R2 server. namespace mode is 2008. I have copied 3 TB data on file server 1. now it is getting replicated from file server 1 to file server 2. till now the data is not fully replicated.
My question is how can I check the status of DFS replication? how will I come to know that the initial replication is completed.

Scorpio. Yes you are right. Microsoft officially says it will not work. My apologies. Thanks for the correction.
Do Ultrasound and Sonar work with DFS Replication?
No. DFS Replication has its own set of monitoring and diagnostics tools. Ultrasound and Sonar are only capable of monitoring FRS.
Is there a way to know the state of replication?
Yes. There are a number of ways to monitor replication:
DFS Replication has a management pack for System Center Operations Manager 2007 that provides proactive monitoring.
DFS Replication has an in-box diagnostic report for the replication backlog, replication efficiency, and the number of files and folders in a given replication group.
Dfsrdiag.exe is a command-line tool that can generate a backlog count or trigger a propagation test. Both show the state of replication. Propagation shows you if files are being replicated to all nodes. Backlog shows you how many files still need to replicate
before two computers are in sync. The backlog count is the number of updates that a replication group member has not processed. On computers running Windows Server 2008 R2, Dfsrdiag.exe can also display the updates that DFS Replication is currently
replicating.
Scripts can use WMI to collect backlog information—manually or through MOM.
Miguel Fra /
Falcon IT Services
Computer & Network Support, Miami, FL
Visit our Knowledgebase and Support Sharepoint Site

Apache Commons Net - Retrieve File - Extension, Compare , Move - FTP Server

Dear All,
I am using Apache Commons net FTP Library for FTP Operations. I had a few doubts
1) I like to retrieve ftp files only with some extensions like *.txt or *.jpg etc. How can we retrieve files with specifying file extension?
2) I need to compare the FTP Files with the local files before downloading from the FTP Server?
3) I need to move files from the ftp server to local directory. Is there is anyway to move the files rather than first retrieve files from the FTP Server and then deleting the file in the FTP Server using FTP delete()
Thanks,
J.Kathiresan

1) I like to retrieve ftp files only with some
extensions like *.txt or *.jpg etc. How can we
retrieve files with specifying file extension?
List the files and then filter the list to those that you want to process.
2) I need to compare the FTP Files with the local
files before downloading from the FTP Server?Think about this one! To compare two files you nead to read both. If you do this on the client then you will have to copy the file from the server first!
>
3) I need to move files from the ftp server to local
directory. Is there is anyway to move the files
rather than first retrieve files from the FTP Server
and then deleting the file in the FTP Server using
FTP delete()What is wrong with copy then delete?

Move files to Trush from Server

I have set up a Mac OS X Server 10.4.6; and i share caple of Volumes to Mac OS X, Mac OS 9 & WinXP.
So my problem is when i move somthing to Trush from OS X, a window apears to say "The item .... will be deleted immediatly. Are you sure you want to continue? if i press OK then the file will delete. This dos not hapen with OS 9. can you help me???
I wont to move my files first to Trash and when i decide to emty my trash the file will delte.

are these AFP shares or SMB shares?
anyway, i found an excellent writeup on these issues on the macintouch site.... copy/pasting:
There are some subtleties that actually determine the exact behavior of Macs when it comes to trashing files on Network volumes for both Mac OS X and Mac OS 9 and earlier.
All of the different behaviors comes back to one basic question - where does the file moved to the trash go? Remember, the Trash Can is just a directory (actually, the summation of several directories) where files get moved to. There has to be a different one for each volume that is mounted so that you don't have to copy a file from one volume to another volume to put something in the trash - hence your "Trash Can" actually reflects the contents of these different directories on different volumes. I believe (though I can't prove it) that even when dealing with network mounted volumes this is a client decision, not a file server decision. The file server (regardless of the OS running) just gets a request to move a file from point A to point B - it doesn't know that this file is being "trashed".
In Mac OS 9 and earlier for local volumes, there was just one directory to hold trash for that volume. Mac OS 9 and earlier didn't have the concept of multiple users (without additional software at least, and these were essentially nasty contortions to "fake it"). For network volumes there was a scheme for creating an invisible Network Trash folder on the root level of the Share. I don't know how it handled multiple users logging into the same share (and am not going to spend the time to figure out - I believe it had to do with actually having multiple Trash Can folders within the Network Network Trash folder). So, if you had write permissions to the root level of the share you could create this folder (if it didn't already exist) and the client Mac would move the trashed file there. However, it would insist (at least is some cases - again, don't know all the details) on emptying this folders contents (your trash) when you went to dismount the network volume. However, if you didn't have write permissions to the Network Trash folder or to the root level of the share to create a Network Trash folder, you would get the message that the file would need to be deleted immediately.
In Mac OS X Apple had to change the scheme as we are now in a multi-user environment - there are many different "trash can" directories. Each user gets one in .Trashes at the root level of their home directory (whether it be a local disk home directory or a network mounted home directory). There is also a .Trashes at the root level of all volumes mounted. Inside of this root level of the volume .Trashes directory is a folder with a number on it (the number is the UID - user id which - each login actually maps to one of these, remember that computers do numbers so we are all a number to them . So, if I delete an item off of a Firewire hard drive that I have plugged in, the file gets moved to the .Trashes/{UID number} at the root level of that Firewire drive. Since each user has a unique UID, we also have unique trash cans - that in our home directory .Trashes, and then in the volume based .Trashes it is in the folder /.Trashes/{UID}.
Now we turn to Mac OS X with network volumes. It would appear that Apple doesn't even try to create a .Trashes/{UID} at the root level of network shares. It just insists on deleting the file immediately if it is on a network share. I am not quite sure of why this decision was made, but it does make things much cleaner from a system administration standpoint. Think about a network share that 2000 different users have access to (and yes I have those - we have about 80,000 users of our servers across around 180 "shares" that is a lot of trash cans OUTSIDE of the users directory (since it must be at the root level of the share) that they have permission to write to and can have files in. That breaks entirely the paradigm of keeping all user writable spaces in one place. Now, this doesn't apply when you mount the volume as a home directory since it uses the .Trashes directory at the root level of the USER'S HOME directory, NOT the root level of the share. If you don't understand the difference between these two situations (mounting as a share and mounting as a home directory), ask someone who programs or does system administration .
Now, since this is a client decision, the Mac OS 9 client will move it to a writable Network Trash directory if one exists while Mac OS X clients won't even try even when the two are looking at the same file server. This is why you get different behavior to the same share depending on the client OS version. However, if the user doesn't have write permission to the Network Trashes folder at the root of the share, Mac OS 9 and earlier will now behave like Mac OS X - delete immediately.
There is one place where I get different results than what Alex Narvey described. When I mount the space via SMB with a Mac OS Xclient, I get the SAME behavior as I did when I mounted that same space via AFP. Now, if you are going via SMB to a different kind of file server (namely, a Windows one) that might explain the different behavior, but I tend to doubt it. As I said above, I believe how to move things to trash is a client decision/behavior, not server (and as I said above - I can't prove that). So, I don't have an explanation for the difference between the behavior I see and the behavior Alex described.
Long, but hopefully educational. Doesn't explain WHY Apple made the decision they did, but should give one a better understanding of the different behaviors that can occur. Like in science, it is important to remember that different behaviors occur because something IS different. Now, perhaps Apple should make the behaviors the same (from a user standpoint) even when things are different (like what kind of volume are we dealing with, who has write permissions to where, etc). - that I will duck. That is an argument between a human interface designer and the programmer who actually has to try and make it work.
Following up on my own post -
It just dawned on me WHY Apple would make Mac OS X always ask to immediately delete a file off a network share, rather than trash it.
For consistency of the user experience when dealing with network shares. In Mac OS 9 and earlier whether you could move a file to the trash or if you had to delete immediately depended on the SERVER and write permissions there on the server. So, on Mac OS 9 and earlier you would get different behavior and have no real idea why you got different behavior.
The Mac OS X behavior is different from that of Mac OS 9 and earlier, but within itself, it is very consistent - for network volumes you are always asked to delete the file immediately. This means that the user has a consistent user experience when at that Mac, regardless of the type of server or their permissions on the different network shares they may work with. If this is why Apple made the change in OS X, I would agree with them. Consistency is more important than features (as a general statement).

Move files from one server to another

<cfset spath = "\\ght4\clients\abc\new\256\">
<cfset dpath ="\\ffg\clients\def\new\kij">
<cffile action = "move" source = "#spath#" destination = "#dpath#">
It generating an error Is there a way to move files from server to another in coldfusion

You talk to your network administrator(s) and ask them what permissions have been assigned to the user that the ColdFusion service|demeon is running as.
P.S. By default, on a windows machine, ColdFusion runs as a "localSystem" user, which usually has *no* permissions to other systems.

HOW TO MOVE FILES BETWEEN FOLDERS ON APPLICATION SERVER

Hi ,
I want to move files between folders on application servers and also on presentation server.
Is any ABAP code available for it.
Can anybody help me out in this.
Waiting for reply.
Thanks & regards,
Nitin

I am also interested in this post. The FB ARCHIVFILE_SERVER_TO_SERVER workes fine for copying the file, however I also need to remove the file from its original location.
Does anybody have a sugestion on how I can do that (in coding).
Regards,
Minim

DFS ABE on Existing File Server

I have a couple questions about DFS.
We currently have a file server that we need to setup Access Based Enumeration on to hide folders the user does not have access to. The server is 2008 R2 in a Windows 2003 Forest & Domain.
I've read contradicting articles saying it will work on 2003 forest/domain level and another stating that it can work on a 2003 forest as long as the domain level is 2008.
My other concern is that i am taking an existing file server and adding DFS to it. I have backups in place but will adding a DFS Namespace and eventually ABE affect my current shares or permissions?

Hi,
Sorry for the delay.
If you choose Stand-Alone Namespace and enable access-based enumeration in DFS namespace, Windows Server 2008 namespace server is required. If you choose a domain-based namespace, you must choose whether to use the Windows 2000 Server mode or the Windows
Server 2008 mode. But only the Windows Server 2008 mode support for access-based enumeration.
To use the Windows Server 2008 mode, the domain and namespace must meet the following minimum requirements:
•The forest uses the Windows Server 2003 or higher forest functional level.
•The domain uses the Windows Server 2008 or higher domain functional level.
•All namespace servers are running Windows Server 2012 R2, Windows Server 2012, Windows Server 2008 R2, or Windows Server 2008.
For more detailed information, please refer to the articles below:
Enable Access-Based Enumeration on a Namespace
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/dd759150.aspx
Choose a Namespace Type
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/cc770287.aspx
For your second question, ABE only hides files and folders that users do not have permission to access, it doesn’t affect current shares or NTFS permissions.
Regards,
Mandy
We
are trying to better understand customer views on social support experience, so your participation in this
interview project would be greatly appreciated if you have time.
Thanks for helping make community forums a great place.

Replace a 2003 (not R2) File Server with a 2012R2 files server and preferably keep the same machine name and IP when finished

I am wanting to replace a 2003 (not R2) File Server with a 2012R2 file server and preferably keep the same machine name and IP when finished. For the moment I just need some "high level" guidance, little details can be worked out once I know
which direction I will go. I was considering that DFS might be a way to help get through the process although when finished the 2012R2 Files server will be by itself with no other file server planned at this time. DFS can stay installed for maybe
future purposes but clearly I wouldn't need the DFS Replication with only one machine.
Here's a few details of the environment....
1. DC's are 2012R2 but it is still 2003 DFL because the old 2003 DCs are still present. But likely they will be gone and the DFL elevated before I start on the File Server project
2. Nearly all machines in the facility have a shortcut on the "All Users" Desktop that points to the existing old File Server. Editing or replacing that shortcut would be a major pain,...hence why I want to keep the same machine name at least,
and maybe the same IP if not too much trouble. This way the existing shortcut would continue to work with the new 2012R2 File Server. The UNC path represented in that shortcut is also configured into one or more of our major business applications,
futher emphasizing the need to keep the UNC path the same throughout the process.
3. The facility runs 24/7/365 but is "light" on weekends. The political environment is such that there is little to no tolerance for any down time at all.
4. Would DFS (based from the 2012R2 machine) be a good tool to get where I need to go?
Thanks for any suggestions.
Phillip Windell

Hi Sharon,
I've done some more reading and have a few new ideas to run past you....
Yes regular DFS wouldn't help and the Namespace would still be different than how it was with just the old server. However I was thinking DFS Replication could replace the purpose of RoboCopy and it would keep the two locations "in sync" until I was ready
to flip over to the new server. DFS Rep can exist independently of a DFS Namespace, so a Namespace is not even needed. It needs a minimum of 2003R2 for the "later & better" DFS Rep but I believe 2003 can do an "in place" upgrade to 2003R2, so I would upgrade
the old server to 2003R2 first. As long as the DFS Rep on 2012R2 and 2003R2 will properly interact I think that will work.
Thanks for the reg info on the Shares. I'm debating if editing that would reg file would really be much better than manually creating the Shares on the new server while the DFS Replication was doing its job. I'll probably export that Key as a
safety move whether I use it or not.
Once the DFS Rep is fully in sync and the Shares are in place on the new server, I figure I would then:
1. Remove the DFS Replication Object (optionally remove DFS Services completely)
2. Rename the old File Server to something else and set it to DHCP
3. Rename the new File Server to the name I want to use and give it the IP the old server had.
How does that sound?
Phillip Windell

Best practice migrate file server

I have 3 file servers n two different domains:
FileS01 and FileS02 in domainA (FileS01 / FileS02: Windows 2003R2)
FilesS03 in domainB (FileS03: Windows 2003R2)
Should I migrate to a new
corporate server to be FileS01 (Windows 2012)
also call and be in the domainA.
As you advise me to do it?
Thanks

I recommend you consult this guide:
http://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/jj863566.aspx
Yes, it is a ton of information but it also covers all angles; what to name the servers, when to rename the servers, using DFSN to make things smoother, the migration tools, migrating local users, etc. Due to the sheer amount of information, ignore
the areas that don't apply to your implementation (BrancheCache, as an example.) HOWEVER, I do recommend you consider their suggestion to move this into a DFS Namespace. That way the next time you need to move to a new server, the users will barely feel
it.
Best of luck.

Move file server in DFS

Similar Messages

Maybe you are looking for