I've been working with various clients who lack a robust high availability solution for their SMB file systems and DFS Namespaces. Given the features in Windows Server, I believe it's feasible to set up a high-availability solution that's cost-effective for smaller clients. I've been testing this on my local machine using VMware Workstation, but I'm considering upgrading to VMware ESXi on actual servers.
Currently, I have a setup with two nodes and one additional server for iSCSI storage. I'm aware this isn't the best implementation and that my current storage lacks high availability. To enhance it, I'd require specialized hardware, typically from brands like NetApp or Dell, or consider using iSCSI, although I've heard that protocol is fading in popularity. While Fiber Channel seems to be the gold standard, many clients can't afford that.
Now, regarding Windows Failover, I've noticed it allows presenting storage via enclosure. I'm uncertain if this is a smart choice or just an economical option for those unable to invest in a complete SAN solution. My understanding is that each node would need a dedicated HBA connected to a JBOD, and then I'd use Storage Spaces to set up a software RAID. Am I heading in the right direction? Is this solution functional and reliable? Any feedback or alternative options would be greatly appreciated!
4 Answers
Straight up, I’d caution against using Windows Failover Clustering for SMB. It can introduce more downtime than just running a single server. If you're investing in high availability, look for a SAN solution that can integrate with Active Directory and has dual controllers for redundancy. That said, if you're on a tight budget, consider Starwind vSAN for more cloud-friendly options. It’s worth a look instead of traditional setups.
Don’t be fooled by sales pitches claiming iSCSI is obsolete. It still holds strong value and isn't going anywhere if implemented correctly.
If you want something a bit more traditional, native iSCSI in Windows can work with some tinkering. But honestly, technology like vSAN may provide you with a more stable and effective environment for your needs.
iSCSI becoming obsolete? Not really! Typically, you connect to the SAN via iSCSI. While Fiber Channel is indeed powerful, it’s not always necessary unless you have specific demands. Ethernet and technologies like InfiniBand can offer better bandwidth at lower costs if you're scaling up, plus they tend to be more versatile than traditional Fiber Channel setups.
As for Storage Spaces, I’ve been using it for over a decade in various environments, and it's quite reliable. If you're looking at file servers, just keep in mind you might want to stick to 2TB or less for manageable performance. For more details, you might want to check out Microsoft’s overview on SOFS (Scale-Out File Server) in Windows Server.
Also, keep your budget and actual needs in mind — sometimes simpler solutions like DFS-R can be enough, especially if a little downtime is acceptable.
I’ve had mixed experiences with DFS-R too, so I’d be cautious about relying solely on that for namespaces. A solid server setup might give you a better testing ground!
Any guidance on manufacturers for this type of solution? My experience has been mainly with block storage.