I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and verified working)
for a particular folder running for quite some time.

Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem and
rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so users
would not connect to it.

But several users reported that particular files had resorted to versions
that were a few weeks old.

As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB replication was
still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some time ago,
presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users. The
replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there are no
errors or warnings in the logs of either server.

So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the ServerB
reference and were saving their files there, those changes were not
replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred" to the
ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.

My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I don't
really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.

One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can really be
relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need to start
looking at 3rd party solutions.

Hi,
I will follow this up with the FRS team.
Thanks

--
Thanks,
Arif Saifee [MSFT]

PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
"microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the subject to
make it immediately noticeable.

Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.

"Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:eczv%(E-Mail Removed)...
> I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and verified
working)
> for a particular folder running for quite some time.
>
> Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem and
> rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so users
> would not connect to it.
>
> But several users reported that particular files had resorted to versions
> that were a few weeks old.
>
> As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB replication was
> still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some time
ago,
> presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users. The
> replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there are no
> errors or warnings in the logs of either server.
>
> So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the ServerB
> reference and were saving their files there, those changes were not
> replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred" to the
> ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.
>
> My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I don't
> really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.
>
> One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can really be
> relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need to start
> looking at 3rd party solutions.
>
>

Not that I really expect anything, but did you ever hear anything regarding
this Arif... other than the "he's crazy, that can't happen" that I expect?


"Arif Saifee [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> Hi,
> I will follow this up with the FRS team.
> Thanks
>
> --
> Thanks,
> Arif Saifee [MSFT]
>
> PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
> "microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the subject to
> make it immediately noticeable.
>
> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> no rights.
>
> "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:eczv%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and verified
> working)
> > for a particular folder running for quite some time.
> >
> > Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem and
> > rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so users
> > would not connect to it.
> >
> > But several users reported that particular files had resorted to
versions
> > that were a few weeks old.
> >
> > As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB replication was
> > still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some time
> ago,
> > presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users. The
> > replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there are no
> > errors or warnings in the logs of either server.
> >
> > So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the
ServerB
> > reference and were saving their files there, those changes were not
> > replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred" to the
> > ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.
> >
> > My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I don't
> > really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.
> >
> > One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can really be
> > relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need to
start
> > looking at 3rd party solutions.
> >
> >
>
>

Daniel,
As you theorize, it does sound like ServerB -> ServerA replication could be
broken. A quick test would be to drop a small text file into ServerB & see
if it makes it to ServerA (and vice versa). Anyway, at this point I would
ask:

1) Are there any errors or warnings in the eventlog for FRS?
2) Are you using Sonar to monitor FRS? If so, is it reporting any errors,
replication backlogs, etc?
3) How widespread is the issue? Is it specific to only a few files or
widespread among all replicated content? This would indicate different
problems of course..

Anyway, let us know. If you haven't seen the FRS troubleshooting package w/
Sonar, you can get it here:

http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...ew/sonar-o.asp

--
Brian [MSFT]

Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights. Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is
for newsgroup purposes only.

"Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not that I really expect anything, but did you ever hear anything
regarding
> this Arif... other than the "he's crazy, that can't happen" that I expect?
>
>
> "Arif Saifee [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hi,
> > I will follow this up with the FRS team.
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Arif Saifee [MSFT]
> >
> > PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
> > "microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the subject
to
> > make it immediately noticeable.
> >
> > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > no rights.
> >
> > "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
> > news:eczv%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and verified
> > working)
> > > for a particular folder running for quite some time.
> > >
> > > Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem and
> > > rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so
users
> > > would not connect to it.
> > >
> > > But several users reported that particular files had resorted to
> versions
> > > that were a few weeks old.
> > >
> > > As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB replication
was
> > > still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some
time
> > ago,
> > > presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users. The
> > > replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there are
no
> > > errors or warnings in the logs of either server.
> > >
> > > So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the
> ServerB
> > > reference and were saving their files there, those changes were not
> > > replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred" to
the
> > > ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.
> > >
> > > My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I
don't
> > > really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.
> > >
> > > One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can really
be
> > > relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need to
> start
> > > looking at 3rd party solutions.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Hi Daniel,

I have redirected your query to the FRS team. Someone from the team should
be replying to you shortly
--
Thanks,
Arif Saifee [MSFT]

PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
"microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the subject to
make it immediately noticeable.

Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers
no rights.

"Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Not that I really expect anything, but did you ever hear anything
regarding
> this Arif... other than the "he's crazy, that can't happen" that I expect?
>
>
> "Arif Saifee [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Hi,
> > I will follow this up with the FRS team.
> > Thanks
> >
> > --
> > Thanks,
> > Arif Saifee [MSFT]
> >
> > PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
> > "microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the subject
to
> > make it immediately noticeable.
> >
> > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > no rights.
> >
> > "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
> > news:eczv%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and verified
> > working)
> > > for a particular folder running for quite some time.
> > >
> > > Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem and
> > > rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so
users
> > > would not connect to it.
> > >
> > > But several users reported that particular files had resorted to
> versions
> > > that were a few weeks old.
> > >
> > > As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB replication
was
> > > still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some
time
> > ago,
> > > presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users. The
> > > replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there are
no
> > > errors or warnings in the logs of either server.
> > >
> > > So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the
> ServerB
> > > reference and were saving their files there, those changes were not
> > > replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred" to
the
> > > ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.
> > >
> > > My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I
don't
> > > really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.
> > >
> > > One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can really
be
> > > relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need to
> start
> > > looking at 3rd party solutions.
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

That's what I did to verify it Brian. I put File1 on ServerA and it quickly
appears on ServerB. Put File2 on ServerB and... nothing. Change File1 on
ServerA and it's quickly changed on ServerB. Change File1 on ServerB and
ServerA is never modified. No messages in the event logs whatsoever.

Unfortunately for any future testing or debugging, I've ripped this replica
out of my DFS configuration, partly in a rage and partly because I need to
move on. My main question was really if anyone else had experienced this.
I was relying on DFS/FRS to provide reliable high availability but it turned
out it in fact to be worse than no redundancy at all in this case. Needless
to say, I am VERY hesitant to rely on this technology now.

"Brian [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Daniel,
> As you theorize, it does sound like ServerB -> ServerA replication could
be
> broken. A quick test would be to drop a small text file into ServerB &
see
> if it makes it to ServerA (and vice versa). Anyway, at this point I would
> ask:
>
> 1) Are there any errors or warnings in the eventlog for FRS?
> 2) Are you using Sonar to monitor FRS? If so, is it reporting any errors,
> replication backlogs, etc?
> 3) How widespread is the issue? Is it specific to only a few files or
> widespread among all replicated content? This would indicate different
> problems of course..
>
> Anyway, let us know. If you haven't seen the FRS troubleshooting package
w/
> Sonar, you can get it here:
>
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...ew/sonar-o.asp
>
> --
> Brian [MSFT]
>
> Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
confers
> no rights. Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias
is
> for newsgroup purposes only.
>
> "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Not that I really expect anything, but did you ever hear anything
> regarding
> > this Arif... other than the "he's crazy, that can't happen" that I
expect?
> >
> >
> > "Arif Saifee [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Hi,
> > > I will follow this up with the FRS team.
> > > Thanks
> > >
> > > --
> > > Thanks,
> > > Arif Saifee [MSFT]
> > >
> > > PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
> > > "microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the
subject
> to
> > > make it immediately noticeable.
> > >
> > > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> > confers
> > > no rights.
> > >
> > > "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message
> > > news:eczv%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and verified
> > > working)
> > > > for a particular folder running for quite some time.
> > > >
> > > > Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem
and
> > > > rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so
> users
> > > > would not connect to it.
> > > >
> > > > But several users reported that particular files had resorted to
> > versions
> > > > that were a few weeks old.
> > > >
> > > > As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB replication
> was
> > > > still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some
> time
> > > ago,
> > > > presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users.
The
> > > > replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there
are
> no
> > > > errors or warnings in the logs of either server.
> > > >
> > > > So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the
> > ServerB
> > > > reference and were saving their files there, those changes were not
> > > > replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred" to
> the
> > > > ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.
> > > >
> > > > My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I
> don't
> > > > really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.
> > > >
> > > > One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can
really
> be
> > > > relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need to
> > start
> > > > looking at 3rd party solutions.
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>

Daniel,

It is hard to say why your DFS structure's FRS replication was not
working without any troubleshooting data, logs or further information. There
are scenarios where if FRS is not configured correctly or if one of its
dependencies are broken (ie: network connectivity, name resolution, AD
replication) then FRS may not work. If you'd like to further look into it
feel free to post back and we'll help as much as possible.

Regards,
~Luiz (MSFT)


--
Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias is for
newsgroup purposes only.


"Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:%23%(E-Mail Removed)...
> That's what I did to verify it Brian. I put File1 on ServerA and it
quickly
> appears on ServerB. Put File2 on ServerB and... nothing. Change File1 on
> ServerA and it's quickly changed on ServerB. Change File1 on ServerB and
> ServerA is never modified. No messages in the event logs whatsoever.
>
> Unfortunately for any future testing or debugging, I've ripped this
replica
> out of my DFS configuration, partly in a rage and partly because I need to
> move on. My main question was really if anyone else had experienced this.
> I was relying on DFS/FRS to provide reliable high availability but it
turned
> out it in fact to be worse than no redundancy at all in this case.
Needless
> to say, I am VERY hesitant to rely on this technology now.
>
> "Brian [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > Daniel,
> > As you theorize, it does sound like ServerB -> ServerA replication could
> be
> > broken. A quick test would be to drop a small text file into ServerB &
> see
> > if it makes it to ServerA (and vice versa). Anyway, at this point I
would
> > ask:
> >
> > 1) Are there any errors or warnings in the eventlog for FRS?
> > 2) Are you using Sonar to monitor FRS? If so, is it reporting any
errors,
> > replication backlogs, etc?
> > 3) How widespread is the issue? Is it specific to only a few files or
> > widespread among all replicated content? This would indicate different
> > problems of course..
> >
> > Anyway, let us know. If you haven't seen the FRS troubleshooting
package
> w/
> > Sonar, you can get it here:
> >
> >
http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000...ew/sonar-o.asp
> >
> > --
> > Brian [MSFT]
> >
> > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> confers
> > no rights. Please do not send e-mail directly to this alias. This alias
> is
> > for newsgroup purposes only.
> >
> > "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
message
> > news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > Not that I really expect anything, but did you ever hear anything
> > regarding
> > > this Arif... other than the "he's crazy, that can't happen" that I
> expect?
> > >
> > >
> > > "Arif Saifee [MSFT]" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> > > news:u$(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > Hi,
> > > > I will follow this up with the FRS team.
> > > > Thanks
> > > >
> > > > --
> > > > Thanks,
> > > > Arif Saifee [MSFT]
> > > >
> > > > PS: Please post DFS related queries in the newsgroup
> > > > "microsoft.public.win2000.file_system". Please use "DFS" in the
> subject
> > to
> > > > make it immediately noticeable.
> > > >
> > > > Disclaimer: This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and
> > > confers
> > > > no rights.
> > > >
> > > > "Daniel Billingsley" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> > message
> > > > news:eczv%(E-Mail Removed)...
> > > > > I've had two dfs replicas (with frs replication set up and
verified
> > > > working)
> > > > > for a particular folder running for quite some time.
> > > > >
> > > > > Last Friday morning one of the target servers had a memory problem
> and
> > > > > rebooted several times. I eventually took that target offline so
> > users
> > > > > would not connect to it.
> > > > >
> > > > > But several users reported that particular files had resorted to
> > > versions
> > > > > that were a few weeks old.
> > > > >
> > > > > As best I've been able to determine, ServerA -> ServerB
replication
> > was
> > > > > still working, but ServerB -> ServerA replication had stopped some
> > time
> > > > ago,
> > > > > presumably a few weeks ago based on the symptoms from the users.
> The
> > > > > replication settings in the XP DFS manager still look fine, there
> are
> > no
> > > > > errors or warnings in the logs of either server.
> > > > >
> > > > > So, I think the scenario was that for the users that received the
> > > ServerB
> > > > > reference and were saving their files there, those changes were
not
> > > > > replicated back to ServerA, so when those users got "transferred"
to
> > the
> > > > > ServerA reference they were looking at old versions of files.
> > > > >
> > > > > My question is just simply if anyone else has experienced this. I
> > don't
> > > > > really necessarily expect to get to the bottom of it.
> > > > >
> > > > > One of things I need to decide at this point is if DFS/FRS can
> really
> > be
> > > > > relied upon to provide the high availability I need or if I need
to
> > > start
> > > > > looking at 3rd party solutions.
> > > > >
> > > > >
> > > >
> > > >
> > >
> > >
> >
> >
>
>