Discussion:
Difference between "New" DFS (R2) -vs- "Old" DFS?
(too old to reply)
Ed Flecko
2006-02-27 16:10:28 UTC
Permalink
Hi folks,
I'm having a problem with DFS on Server 2003-R2, and a Microsoft support
tech asked me if I set up my DFS with "DFS-R2" (I guess he means the or the
DFS "Management" snap-in) or the "old" "Distributed File System" snap-in.

What difference does that make??? Are you supposed to use the "new" snap-in?
Is there something better about it or the results you see because you use it?

I've, historically, used the plain old "Distributed File System" snap-in and
my replication seemed to work fine. But now I'm nervous because the support
tech completely panicked when the new snap-in didn't display the structure at
all that was created with the old snap-in.
Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
2006-02-27 18:28:57 UTC
Permalink
Ed,

The "DFS Management" UI in R2 uses "DFS Namespaces" for creating roots etc.
(same as the "Distributed File System" snap-in).

However, the replication technologies used to configure replication between
link targets is different. In the new snap-in (DFS Management), it uses DFS
Replication (a re-write of the old service FRS). The existing snap-in
(Distributed File System) uses FRS to configure replication between link
targets.

So if you use the old snap-in to configure replication, details about
replication will NOT show up in the new snap-in. But you should see no
difference in the structure of your root.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Hi folks,
I'm having a problem with DFS on Server 2003-R2, and a Microsoft support
tech asked me if I set up my DFS with "DFS-R2" (I guess he means the or the
DFS "Management" snap-in) or the "old" "Distributed File System" snap-in.
What difference does that make??? Are you supposed to use the "new" snap-in?
Is there something better about it or the results you see because you use it?
I've, historically, used the plain old "Distributed File System" snap-in and
my replication seemed to work fine. But now I'm nervous because the support
tech completely panicked when the new snap-in didn't display the structure at
all that was created with the old snap-in.
Ed Flecko
2006-02-27 18:51:28 UTC
Permalink
Thank you, Harshit. :-)

Let me see if I am clear about this.

If I use the "old" snap-in to set up my DFS from scratch, I will not be
taking advantage of the new "rewrite" of the DFS technology. It would "LOOK"
the same as if I use the new snap-in...but under the hood it's the same as
plain old Server 2003, and Windows 2000-Server.

So...I'm better to use the new snap-in (DFS Management) only.

Is this correct???

Thank you,
Ed
Post by Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
Ed,
The "DFS Management" UI in R2 uses "DFS Namespaces" for creating roots etc.
(same as the "Distributed File System" snap-in).
However, the replication technologies used to configure replication between
link targets is different. In the new snap-in (DFS Management), it uses DFS
Replication (a re-write of the old service FRS). The existing snap-in
(Distributed File System) uses FRS to configure replication between link
targets.
So if you use the old snap-in to configure replication, details about
replication will NOT show up in the new snap-in. But you should see no
difference in the structure of your root.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Hi folks,
I'm having a problem with DFS on Server 2003-R2, and a Microsoft support
tech asked me if I set up my DFS with "DFS-R2" (I guess he means the or the
DFS "Management" snap-in) or the "old" "Distributed File System" snap-in.
What difference does that make??? Are you supposed to use the "new" snap-in?
Is there something better about it or the results you see because you use it?
I've, historically, used the plain old "Distributed File System" snap-in and
my replication seemed to work fine. But now I'm nervous because the support
tech completely panicked when the new snap-in didn't display the structure at
all that was created with the old snap-in.
Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
2006-02-27 21:15:53 UTC
Permalink
Yep, that's correct.

It's obvious that DFS is an overloaded term here. The question really boils
down to whether you want to use FRS or DFS-R to replicate your link targets.
If the latter (recommended), then use the new DFS Management snap-in.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Thank you, Harshit. :-)
Let me see if I am clear about this.
If I use the "old" snap-in to set up my DFS from scratch, I will not be
taking advantage of the new "rewrite" of the DFS technology. It would "LOOK"
the same as if I use the new snap-in...but under the hood it's the same as
plain old Server 2003, and Windows 2000-Server.
So...I'm better to use the new snap-in (DFS Management) only.
Is this correct???
Thank you,
Ed
Post by Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
Ed,
The "DFS Management" UI in R2 uses "DFS Namespaces" for creating roots etc.
(same as the "Distributed File System" snap-in).
However, the replication technologies used to configure replication between
link targets is different. In the new snap-in (DFS Management), it uses DFS
Replication (a re-write of the old service FRS). The existing snap-in
(Distributed File System) uses FRS to configure replication between link
targets.
So if you use the old snap-in to configure replication, details about
replication will NOT show up in the new snap-in. But you should see no
difference in the structure of your root.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Hi folks,
I'm having a problem with DFS on Server 2003-R2, and a Microsoft support
tech asked me if I set up my DFS with "DFS-R2" (I guess he means the or the
DFS "Management" snap-in) or the "old" "Distributed File System" snap-in.
What difference does that make??? Are you supposed to use the "new" snap-in?
Is there something better about it or the results you see because you
use
it?
I've, historically, used the plain old "Distributed File System"
snap-in
and
my replication seemed to work fine. But now I'm nervous because the support
tech completely panicked when the new snap-in didn't display the
structure
at
all that was created with the old snap-in.
Ed Flecko
2006-02-27 23:07:28 UTC
Permalink
Thank you again, Harshit. :-)

O.K. That "begs the question"; what's the difference between FRS and the new
and improved, DFS-R???

Ed
Post by Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
Yep, that's correct.
It's obvious that DFS is an overloaded term here. The question really boils
down to whether you want to use FRS or DFS-R to replicate your link targets.
If the latter (recommended), then use the new DFS Management snap-in.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Thank you, Harshit. :-)
Let me see if I am clear about this.
If I use the "old" snap-in to set up my DFS from scratch, I will not be
taking advantage of the new "rewrite" of the DFS technology. It would "LOOK"
the same as if I use the new snap-in...but under the hood it's the same as
plain old Server 2003, and Windows 2000-Server.
So...I'm better to use the new snap-in (DFS Management) only.
Is this correct???
Thank you,
Ed
Post by Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
Ed,
The "DFS Management" UI in R2 uses "DFS Namespaces" for creating roots etc.
(same as the "Distributed File System" snap-in).
However, the replication technologies used to configure replication between
link targets is different. In the new snap-in (DFS Management), it uses DFS
Replication (a re-write of the old service FRS). The existing snap-in
(Distributed File System) uses FRS to configure replication between link
targets.
So if you use the old snap-in to configure replication, details about
replication will NOT show up in the new snap-in. But you should see no
difference in the structure of your root.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Hi folks,
I'm having a problem with DFS on Server 2003-R2, and a Microsoft support
tech asked me if I set up my DFS with "DFS-R2" (I guess he means the or the
DFS "Management" snap-in) or the "old" "Distributed File System" snap-in.
What difference does that make??? Are you supposed to use the "new" snap-in?
Is there something better about it or the results you see because you
use
it?
I've, historically, used the plain old "Distributed File System"
snap-in
and
my replication seemed to work fine. But now I'm nervous because the support
tech completely panicked when the new snap-in didn't display the
structure
at
all that was created with the old snap-in.
Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
2006-03-04 02:12:13 UTC
Permalink
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/Library/8c4cf2e7-0b92-4643-acbd-abfa9f189d031033.mspx
would be a good starting point to understand the new features.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Thank you again, Harshit. :-)
O.K. That "begs the question"; what's the difference between FRS and the new
and improved, DFS-R???
Ed
Post by Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
Yep, that's correct.
It's obvious that DFS is an overloaded term here. The question really boils
down to whether you want to use FRS or DFS-R to replicate your link targets.
If the latter (recommended), then use the new DFS Management snap-in.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Thank you, Harshit. :-)
Let me see if I am clear about this.
If I use the "old" snap-in to set up my DFS from scratch, I will not be
taking advantage of the new "rewrite" of the DFS technology. It would "LOOK"
the same as if I use the new snap-in...but under the hood it's the same as
plain old Server 2003, and Windows 2000-Server.
So...I'm better to use the new snap-in (DFS Management) only.
Is this correct???
Thank you,
Ed
Post by Harshit Agarwal [MSFT]
Ed,
The "DFS Management" UI in R2 uses "DFS Namespaces" for creating roots etc.
(same as the "Distributed File System" snap-in).
However, the replication technologies used to configure replication between
link targets is different. In the new snap-in (DFS Management), it
uses
DFS
Replication (a re-write of the old service FRS). The existing snap-in
(Distributed File System) uses FRS to configure replication between link
targets.
So if you use the old snap-in to configure replication, details about
replication will NOT show up in the new snap-in. But you should see no
difference in the structure of your root.
--
This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
Post by Ed Flecko
Hi folks,
I'm having a problem with DFS on Server 2003-R2, and a Microsoft support
tech asked me if I set up my DFS with "DFS-R2" (I guess he means the
or
the
DFS "Management" snap-in) or the "old" "Distributed File System" snap-in.
What difference does that make??? Are you supposed to use the "new" snap-in?
Is there something better about it or the results you see because you
use
it?
I've, historically, used the plain old "Distributed File System"
snap-in
and
my replication seemed to work fine. But now I'm nervous because the support
tech completely panicked when the new snap-in didn't display the
structure
at
all that was created with the old snap-in.
m***@gmail.com
2006-03-17 19:36:12 UTC
Permalink
Post by Ed Flecko
Thank you again, Harshit. :-)
O.K. That "begs the question"; what's the difference between FRS and the new
and improved, DFS-R???
Ed
I just want to say that I am really impressed with the traffice saved
with R2's new DFSR. I have a lot of users that open files and save them
with no changes, and instead of moving 4.2GB of actual data, I moved
18MB. WOW!!

Continue reading on narkive:
Loading...