 |
|
|
|
Next: IIS setup and NLB
|
| Author |
Message |
External
Since: Feb 12, 2007
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 1) Posted: Mon Feb 12, 2007 4:09 pm
Post subject: IIS setup with NLB and SAN
Archived from groups: microsoft>public>inetserver>iis (more info?)
|
|
|
Hello all,
I have a single 2003/IIS server that I'd like to improve response and
reliability off.
I figure I could get a 2nd 2003/IIS server, setup a SAN that both can
use, enable NLB to even the load on them and then move the current
site to the SAN so that both servers can use the same site code. I'm
worried that if I have 2 different images the work to post changes on
both could become a real headache and a place that I could screwup.
I'm using ASP and ASP.NET code and making calls to a backend SQL
server that has data that I used to create dynamic pages and response
with.
I don't see any whitepaper or doc on a setup like this at the
Microsoft site or using Google. Is it because it's so easy or just a
dumb idea ? I appreciate any links pointing me to a correct answer.
Thanks,
Jacob |
|
| Back to top |
|
 | |
External
Since: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 30
|
(Msg. 2) Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 2:21 am
Post subject: Re: IIS setup with NLB and SAN [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On Feb 12, 10:09 pm, jeff farber <farb... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> Hello all,
>
> I have a single 2003/IIS server that I'd like to improve response and
> reliability off.
>
> I figure I could get a 2nd 2003/IIS server, setup a SAN that both can
> use, enable NLB to even the load on them and then move the current
> site to the SAN so that both servers can use the same site code. I'm
> worried that if I have 2 different images the work to post changes on
> both could become a real headache and a place that I could screwup.
>
> I'm using ASP and ASP.NET code and making calls to a backend SQL
> server that has data that I used to create dynamic pages and response
> with.
>
> I don't see any whitepaper or doc on a setup like this at the
> Microsoft site or using Google. Is it because it's so easy or just a
> dumb idea ? I appreciate any links pointing me to a correct answer.
>
> Thanks,
>
> Jacob
If you have an application that needs a SAN and clustering, then it
will not necessarily
improve performance...only reliability as you really only use 50%
resources at any time.
Most solutions nowadays, depending on your application, would use load
balancing to give you
this. A LB will improve performance by spreading the load and give you
some resilience too. You may see an
instant difference in performance, but its not always the case as
sometimes DB performance can be
the reason why your app/site slows down anyway with increased load.
Environments I work in put all the expensive disks and SANs at the DB
level - after all thats the important stuff...and
web/applications servers local RAIDED disks for server tolerence. IIS
servers are frequently low end servers with RAIDED
disks for local tolerence.
This may help:
http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/884c727d-6083-4...-ac1d-b
Every site and application is different, so what I have said above may
not apply to your environment...but the above link will have
more facts etc for you |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 30
|
(Msg. 3) Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 8:38 am
Post subject: Re: IIS setup with NLB and SAN [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 13 Feb, 15:57, jeff farber <farb... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> Thanks for the reply, I'll follow the link.
>
> My question was, when you have a bunch of developers working on a
> site, how do you keep the 2 systems in sync ? I don't trust them to
> update both systems when they make changes.
>
> Jacob
>
> On 13 Feb 2007 02:21:55 -0800, "grego" <gregorei... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
> >On Feb 12, 10:09 pm, jeff farber <farb... DeleteThis @gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Hello all,
>
> >> I have a single 2003/IIS server that I'd like to improve response and
> >> reliability off.
>
> >> I figure I could get a 2nd 2003/IIS server, setup a SAN that both can
> >> use, enable NLB to even the load on them and then move the current
> >> site to the SAN so that both servers can use the same site code. I'm
> >> worried that if I have 2 different images the work to post changes on
> >> both could become a real headache and a place that I could screwup.
>
> >> I'm using ASP and ASP.NET code and making calls to a backend SQL
> >> server that has data that I used to create dynamic pages and response
> >> with.
>
> >> I don't see any whitepaper or doc on a setup like this at the
> >> Microsoft site or using Google. Is it because it's so easy or just a
> >> dumb idea ? I appreciate any links pointing me to a correct answer.
>
> >> Thanks,
>
> >> Jacob
>
> >If you have an application that needs a SAN and clustering, then it
> >will not necessarily
> >improve performance...only reliability as you really only use 50%
> >resources at any time.
>
> >Most solutions nowadays, depending on your application, would use load
> >balancing to give you
> >this. A LB will improve performance by spreading the load and give you
> >some resilience too. You may see an
> >instant difference in performance, but its not always the case as
> >sometimes DB performance can be
> >the reason why your app/site slows down anyway with increased load.
>
> >Environments I work in put all the expensive disks and SANs at the DB
> >level - after all thats the important stuff...and
> >web/applications servers local RAIDED disks for server tolerence. IIS
> >servers are frequently low end servers with RAIDED
> >disks for local tolerence.
>
> >This may help:
>
> >http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/884c727d-6083-...
>
> >Every site and application is different, so what I have said above may
> >not apply to your environment...but the above link will have
> >more facts etc for you- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
do you really want developers in control of your site??? In my world,
that would never happen 
Shared storage, DFS or windows file replication services may be an
option. It also depends on
how content is deployed....MSI or flat file copy. You could quite
easily create a batch file to copy from one to the
other and run as a scheduled task to keep stuff in sync. But DFS or
FRS could work for you and provide a single source
I presume if developers are updating content, then this is not a
production/live environment >> Stay informed about: IIS setup with NLB and SAN |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 12, 2007
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 4) Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 9:57 am
Post subject: Re: IIS setup with NLB and SAN [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
Thanks for the reply, I'll follow the link.
My question was, when you have a bunch of developers working on a
site, how do you keep the 2 systems in sync ? I don't trust them to
update both systems when they make changes.
Jacob
On 13 Feb 2007 02:21:55 -0800, "grego" <gregoreilly.RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>On Feb 12, 10:09 pm, jeff farber <farb....RemoveThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Hello all,
>>
>> I have a single 2003/IIS server that I'd like to improve response and
>> reliability off.
>>
>> I figure I could get a 2nd 2003/IIS server, setup a SAN that both can
>> use, enable NLB to even the load on them and then move the current
>> site to the SAN so that both servers can use the same site code. I'm
>> worried that if I have 2 different images the work to post changes on
>> both could become a real headache and a place that I could screwup.
>>
>> I'm using ASP and ASP.NET code and making calls to a backend SQL
>> server that has data that I used to create dynamic pages and response
>> with.
>>
>> I don't see any whitepaper or doc on a setup like this at the
>> Microsoft site or using Google. Is it because it's so easy or just a
>> dumb idea ? I appreciate any links pointing me to a correct answer.
>>
>> Thanks,
>>
>> Jacob
>
>If you have an application that needs a SAN and clustering, then it
>will not necessarily
>improve performance...only reliability as you really only use 50%
>resources at any time.
>
>Most solutions nowadays, depending on your application, would use load
>balancing to give you
>this. A LB will improve performance by spreading the load and give you
>some resilience too. You may see an
>instant difference in performance, but its not always the case as
>sometimes DB performance can be
>the reason why your app/site slows down anyway with increased load.
>
>Environments I work in put all the expensive disks and SANs at the DB
>level - after all thats the important stuff...and
>web/applications servers local RAIDED disks for server tolerence. IIS
>servers are frequently low end servers with RAIDED
>disks for local tolerence.
>
>This may help:
>
>http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/884c727d-6083-4265-ac1d-b5e66b68281a1033.mspx?mfr=true
>
>Every site and application is different, so what I have said above may
>not apply to your environment...but the above link will have
>more facts etc for you >> Stay informed about: IIS setup with NLB and SAN |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Feb 12, 2007
Posts: 4
|
(Msg. 5) Posted: Tue Feb 13, 2007 3:12 pm
Post subject: Re: IIS setup with NLB and SAN [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 13 Feb 2007 08:38:26 -0800, "grego" <gregoreilly.TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
Thanks again for the reply,
We do have a test environment, but in the end the changes have to go
live. I just want to be sure that when a change goes live, it hits
both servers, so there is no chance that someone would get one version
of a page on server A and another on A'. As for developers, maybe it
means something different then what I meant, which was the webmasters
and content providers that use the website.
I thought about DFS and will talk to the web guys about that..
Thanks again,
Jacob
>On 13 Feb, 15:57, jeff farber <farb....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> Thanks for the reply, I'll follow the link.
>>
>> My question was, when you have a bunch of developers working on a
>> site, how do you keep the 2 systems in sync ? I don't trust them to
>> update both systems when they make changes.
>>
>> Jacob
>>
>> On 13 Feb 2007 02:21:55 -0800, "grego" <gregorei....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> >On Feb 12, 10:09 pm, jeff farber <farb....TakeThisOut@gmail.com> wrote:
>> >> Hello all,
>>
>> >> I have a single 2003/IIS server that I'd like to improve response and
>> >> reliability off.
>>
>> >> I figure I could get a 2nd 2003/IIS server, setup a SAN that both can
>> >> use, enable NLB to even the load on them and then move the current
>> >> site to the SAN so that both servers can use the same site code. I'm
>> >> worried that if I have 2 different images the work to post changes on
>> >> both could become a real headache and a place that I could screwup.
>>
>> >> I'm using ASP and ASP.NET code and making calls to a backend SQL
>> >> server that has data that I used to create dynamic pages and response
>> >> with.
>>
>> >> I don't see any whitepaper or doc on a setup like this at the
>> >> Microsoft site or using Google. Is it because it's so easy or just a
>> >> dumb idea ? I appreciate any links pointing me to a correct answer.
>>
>> >> Thanks,
>>
>> >> Jacob
>>
>> >If you have an application that needs a SAN and clustering, then it
>> >will not necessarily
>> >improve performance...only reliability as you really only use 50%
>> >resources at any time.
>>
>> >Most solutions nowadays, depending on your application, would use load
>> >balancing to give you
>> >this. A LB will improve performance by spreading the load and give you
>> >some resilience too. You may see an
>> >instant difference in performance, but its not always the case as
>> >sometimes DB performance can be
>> >the reason why your app/site slows down anyway with increased load.
>>
>> >Environments I work in put all the expensive disks and SANs at the DB
>> >level - after all thats the important stuff...and
>> >web/applications servers local RAIDED disks for server tolerence. IIS
>> >servers are frequently low end servers with RAIDED
>> >disks for local tolerence.
>>
>> >This may help:
>>
>> >http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/884c727d-6083-...
>>
>> >Every site and application is different, so what I have said above may
>> >not apply to your environment...but the above link will have
>> >more facts etc for you- Hide quoted text -
>>
>> - Show quoted text -
>
>do you really want developers in control of your site??? In my world,
>that would never happen
>
>Shared storage, DFS or windows file replication services may be an
>option. It also depends on
>how content is deployed....MSI or flat file copy. You could quite
>easily create a batch file to copy from one to the
>other and run as a scheduled task to keep stuff in sync. But DFS or
>FRS could work for you and provide a single source
>
>I presume if developers are updating content, then this is not a
>production/live environment >> Stay informed about: IIS setup with NLB and SAN |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
External
Since: Jan 04, 2007
Posts: 30
|
(Msg. 6) Posted: Wed Feb 14, 2007 1:37 am
Post subject: Re: IIS setup with NLB and SAN [Login to view extended thread Info.]
Archived from groups: per prev. post (more info?)
|
|
|
On 13 Feb, 21:12, jeff farber <farb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> On 13 Feb 2007 08:38:26 -0800, "grego" <gregorei....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> Thanks again for the reply,
>
> We do have a test environment, but in the end the changes have to go
> live. I just want to be sure that when a change goes live, it hits
> both servers, so there is no chance that someone would get one version
> of a page on server A and another on A'. As for developers, maybe it
> means something different then what I meant, which was the webmasters
> and content providers that use the website.
>
> I thought about DFS and will talk to the web guys about that..
>
> Thanks again,
>
> Jacob
>
>
>
> >On 13 Feb, 15:57, jeff farber <farb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> Thanks for the reply, I'll follow the link.
>
> >> My question was, when you have a bunch of developers working on a
> >> site, how do you keep the 2 systems in sync ? I don't trust them to
> >> update both systems when they make changes.
>
> >> Jacob
>
> >> On 13 Feb 2007 02:21:55 -0800, "grego" <gregorei....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
>
> >> >On Feb 12, 10:09 pm, jeff farber <farb....DeleteThis@gmail.com> wrote:
> >> >> Hello all,
>
> >> >> I have a single 2003/IIS server that I'd like to improve response and
> >> >> reliability off.
>
> >> >> I figure I could get a 2nd 2003/IIS server, setup a SAN that both can
> >> >> use, enable NLB to even the load on them and then move the current
> >> >> site to the SAN so that both servers can use the same site code. I'm
> >> >> worried that if I have 2 different images the work to post changes on
> >> >> both could become a real headache and a place that I could screwup.
>
> >> >> I'm using ASP and ASP.NET code and making calls to a backend SQL
> >> >> server that has data that I used to create dynamic pages and response
> >> >> with.
>
> >> >> I don't see any whitepaper or doc on a setup like this at the
> >> >> Microsoft site or using Google. Is it because it's so easy or just a
> >> >> dumb idea ? I appreciate any links pointing me to a correct answer.
>
> >> >> Thanks,
>
> >> >> Jacob
>
> >> >If you have an application that needs a SAN and clustering, then it
> >> >will not necessarily
> >> >improve performance...only reliability as you really only use 50%
> >> >resources at any time.
>
> >> >Most solutions nowadays, depending on your application, would use load
> >> >balancing to give you
> >> >this. A LB will improve performance by spreading the load and give you
> >> >some resilience too. You may see an
> >> >instant difference in performance, but its not always the case as
> >> >sometimes DB performance can be
> >> >the reason why your app/site slows down anyway with increased load.
>
> >> >Environments I work in put all the expensive disks and SANs at the DB
> >> >level - after all thats the important stuff...and
> >> >web/applications servers local RAIDED disks for server tolerence. IIS
> >> >servers are frequently low end servers with RAIDED
> >> >disks for local tolerence.
>
> >> >This may help:
>
> >> >http://technet2.microsoft.com/WindowsServer/en/library/884c727d-6083-...
>
> >> >Every site and application is different, so what I have said above may
> >> >not apply to your environment...but the above link will have
> >> >more facts etc for you- Hide quoted text -
>
> >> - Show quoted text -
>
> >do you really want developers in control of your site??? In my world,
> >that would never happen
>
> >Shared storage, DFS or windows file replication services may be an
> >option. It also depends on
> >how content is deployed....MSI or flat file copy. You could quite
> >easily create a batch file to copy from one to the
> >other and run as a scheduled task to keep stuff in sync. But DFS or
> >FRS could work for you and provide a single source
>
> >I presume if developers are updating content, then this is not a
> >production/live environment- Hide quoted text -
>
> - Show quoted text -
You could try setting up virtual folders that map to the same drive/
unc path. So when
the code is copied to that location...both servers are sure to be in
sync. Local storage will always
be quicker for you, but a network resource on the same network may
work just aswell. >> Stay informed about: IIS setup with NLB and SAN |
|
| Back to top |
|
| |
|
You can post new topics in this forum
You can reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
FAQ
Profile
Private Messages
Log in
