Does anyone know of an alternative to Microsoft's DFS?  I'm looking to
go beyond the limits of what DFS can do but have no idea who the other
players are in this space.

Thanks.

~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Faeandar" <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:nfi1j1hvelnl96qclhrtqshtehb10qieii@
4ax.com...
> Does anyone know of an alternative to Microsoft's DFS?  I'm looking to
> go beyond the limits of what DFS can do but have no idea who the other
> players are in this space.

From what I know DFS will be improved a lot in Windows Server 2003 R2. Do
you still need more that that?

Regards,

Kaj

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 07:41:03 +0200, "Kaj S. Laursen" <kaj@hih.dk>
wrote:

>
>"Faeandar" <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
> news:nfi1j1hvelnl96qclhrtqshtehb10qieii@
4ax.com... 
>
>From what I know DFS will be improved a lot in Windows Server 2003 R2. Do
>you still need more that that?
>
>Regards,
>
>Kaj
>

Yes.  The 5k link limit in Domain is too small.  And 50k is good
enough for a while but it can't be replicated in a manner that will
allow a remote site to access the local replication of a stand alone
root based in another site.

What I think I'm looking for is a DNS cache server concept for DFS,
but I could be wrong.  This is why I'm looking for alternatives.

~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:05:16 GMT, Faeandar wrote:

>Does anyone know of an alternative to Microsoft's DFS?  I'm looking to
>go beyond the limits of what DFS can do but have no idea who the other
>players are in this space.

Hi Faeandar,

Have a look at StorageX from NuView.  It uses DFS at the back end, but
implements lots features you simply can't get in plain vanilla DFS, so
might be suitable for you.

HVB.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:30:25 +0100, HVB <devnull@127.0.0.1> wrote:

>On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 03:05:16 GMT, Faeandar wrote:
> 
>
>Hi Faeandar,
>
>Have a look at StorageX from NuView.  It uses DFS at the back end, but
>implements lots features you simply can't get in plain vanilla DFS, so
>might be suitable for you.
>
>HVB.


I've spoken with them in the past about NetApp specific stuff (VFM)
and they've headed the short list alternatives.  Glad to see some
validation for this idea.

Do you have experience with this in a DFS environment?

Thanks.

~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

In article <ms83j1tkgm278b2vthhjpm2itocggqkdeg@4ax.com>,
mr_castalot@yahoo.com says...
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 12:30:25 +0100, HVB <devnull@127.0.0.1> wrote:
> 
>
>
> I've spoken with them in the past about NetApp specific stuff (VFM)
> and they've headed the short list alternatives.  Glad to see some
> validation for this idea.
>
> Do you have experience with this in a DFS environment?
>
> Thanks.
>
> ~F
>

We were looking at StorageX, for some reason (I expect cost) it has been
put to one side ... we ae now looking at veritas replication something
or other.

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:07:08 +0100, m0rk <no@email.ever> wrote:

>In article <ms83j1tkgm278b2vthhjpm2itocggqkdeg@4ax.com>,
>mr_castalot@yahoo.com says... 
>
>We were looking at StorageX, for some reason (I expect cost) it has been
>put to one side ... we ae now looking at veritas replication something
>or other.

I would be interested to know why StorageX was tabled, I expect it was
cost also.  The stuff ain't cheap.

Are you looking to Veritas to replicate DFS info for you or is it just
data?  As though "just data" wasn't important or anything....

~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

Another good product to look at is the one from Tacit.

Faeandar wrote:
> On Wed, 21 Sep 2005 21:07:08 +0100, m0rk <no@email.ever> wrote:
> 
>
> I would be interested to know why StorageX was tabled, I expect it was
> cost also.  The stuff ain't cheap.
>
> Are you looking to Veritas to replicate DFS info for you or is it just
> data?  As though "just data" wasn't important or anything....
>
> ~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

On 22 Sep 2005 08:54:00 -0700, "stevek@idix.com"
<skenniston@gmail.com> wrote:
[vbcol=seagreen]
>Another good product to look at is the one from Tacit.
>
>Faeandar wrote: 

Any chance you could tell me why Tacit could be a replacement for DFS?
We have some Tacit boxes in place but they are primarily used for WAN
acceleration (WAFS).

Thanks.

~F

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]

"Faeandar" <mr_castalot@yahoo.com> wrote in message
 news:nfi1j1hvelnl96qclhrtqshtehb10qieii@
4ax.com...
> Does anyone know of an alternative to Microsoft's DFS?  I'm looking to
> go beyond the limits of what DFS can do but have no idea who the other
> players are in this space.
>
> Thanks.
>
> ~F

If switching from windows is an option, Veritas Filesystem on unix/linux?

[ Post a follow-up to this message ]