root-level Dfs shared folders

Discussion in 'MCSE' started by David K, Nov 21, 2003.

  1. David K

    David K Guest

    Sybex's 70-215 2nd ed book on page 388-389 states how only
    domain-based Dfs roots can have root-level Dfs shared folders.

    I don't understand what a root-level Dfs shared folder is. Is it
    talking about replicating the single root folder, or replicating the
    entire Dfs structure, or all the first-level folders (meaning all of
    the folders since only a single level is allowed in stand-alone Dfs
    roots), or what?

    And why is it Dfs instead of DFS?

    Thanks,
    Dave
    David K, Nov 21, 2003
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. David K

    Herb Martin Guest

    "David K" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Sybex's 70-215 2nd ed book on page 388-389 states how only
    > domain-based Dfs roots can have root-level Dfs shared folders.


    That's not true -- only the Domain DFS can have ROOT REPLICAS,
    but Stand-alone have have (must have) as share at the root level.

    With Stand-alone you cannot replicate the ROOT to another server.

    > I don't understand what a root-level Dfs shared folder is. Is it
    > talking about replicating the single root folder, or replicating the
    > entire Dfs structure, or all the first-level folders (meaning all of
    > the folders since only a single level is allowed in stand-alone Dfs
    > roots), or what?


    You may be confusing Shares, with Directories, with DFS Root/Links.
    (Please do yourself a favor and avoid the very imprecise word "folder"
    when trying to sort this out -- yes I know lots of people use it but it is
    DESIGNED to mask the differences, for users, between the various
    physical implementations.)

    Ok, a Share is on a single server and represents a network offering
    (sharing)
    of a directory tree (aka folder).

    A Directory is on a disk drive (or some substitute) and represents a volume
    tree (or subtree) of directories, subdirectories, and files.

    A DFS root (or link) comprises one or more shares and thereby points to the
    directories offered by those shares -- and so must be replicated if
    there is more
    than ONE share for the ROOT, or more than one share for a particular
    LINK.
    Note: Root and each Link are different and distinct (see below.)

    DFS root is the TOP of a particular DFS hierarchy and has:
    At least one share (or in JUST the Domain case, perhaps more than one
    share)
    Optional Links, i.e., Link1

    DFS roots appear to act much like Shares, by offering the resources at the
    top
    directory level of the root share(s) AND all files and subdirectories
    below.

    DFS links appear AS IF they are subdirectories under the "root" but each
    has it's
    OWN set of (one or more) shares

    When a DFS Root or Share has more than one "share" for THE root, or any
    PARTICULAR LINK, that set is usually called a "Replica set."

    So it looks like this:

    DFS Root --> points to one or more (Domain-only) servers with the REAL
    shares
    Real-Share Directories appear here
    with share root level files
    And subdirectories
    and files
    etc.
    Link (optional) --> Points to one or more servers with the REAL
    shares
    (looks like a subdirectory to users)
    Real-Share Directories appear here
    with share root level files
    And subdirectories
    and files
    etc.

    > And why is it Dfs instead of DFS?


    Stupid Sybex. Everyone I know writes DFS

    The rules:
    Domain based DFS can have:
    Root replicas
    Automatic replication
    Better fault-tolerance since the DFS INFO (not the data) is stored
    in AD

    The rules:
    Stand-alone or Server based DFS can have:
    NO Root replicas
    NO Automatic replication (at the link level)
    less fault-tolerance since the DFS INFO (not the data) is stored
    on ROOT server in the Registry


    --
    Herb Martin
    Herb Martin, Nov 21, 2003
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. David K

    David K Guest

    On Fri, 21 Nov 2003 11:48:57 -0600, "Herb Martin"
    <> wrote:
    [snip]
    >The rules:
    > Domain based DFS can have:
    > Root replicas
    > Automatic replication
    > Better fault-tolerance since the DFS INFO (not the data) is stored
    >in AD
    >
    >The rules:
    > Stand-alone or Server based DFS can have:
    > NO Root replicas
    > NO Automatic replication (at the link level)
    > less fault-tolerance since the DFS INFO (not the data) is stored
    > on ROOT server in the Registry


    Okay, that makes sense. That's actually what I was initially thinking,
    that it meant the stand-alone DFS can't have root replicas. But it
    said root-level shares, and silly me, I almost believed it.

    Thanks for your replies, Herb.

    Dave
    David K, Nov 21, 2003
    #3
  4. You can look this up but I believe IBM(?) holds the
    trademark or copywrite to a similar technology also
    called "DFS". Thus Microsoft's DFS is properly written
    Dfs.

    >-----Original Message-----
    >"David K" <> wrote in message
    >news:...
    >> Sybex's 70-215 2nd ed book on page 388-389 states how

    only

    >> And why is it Dfs instead of DFS?

    >
    >Stupid Sybex. Everyone I know writes DFS
    >

    <<< SNIPPED >>>
    >--
    >Herb Martin
    >
    >
    >.
    >
    Just another IT Peon, Nov 22, 2003
    #4
  5. David K

    Herb Martin Guest

    "Just another IT Peon" <> wrote in
    message news:01b201c3b139$9b769d00$...
    > You can look this up but I believe IBM(?) holds the
    > trademark or copywrite to a similar technology also
    > called "DFS". Thus Microsoft's DFS is properly written
    > Dfs.


    No, it's just "stupid Sybex" if they made a point of that as Microsoft
    uses DFS in the "Help" definition of Distributed Files System (DFS)
    and throughout the product.

    --
    Herb Martin
    >
    > >-----Original Message-----
    > >"David K" <> wrote in message
    > >news:...
    > >> Sybex's 70-215 2nd ed book on page 388-389 states how

    > only
    >
    > >> And why is it Dfs instead of DFS?

    > >
    > >Stupid Sybex. Everyone I know writes DFS
    > >

    > <<< SNIPPED >>>
    > >--
    > >Herb Martin
    > >
    > >
    > >.
    > >

    >
    Herb Martin, Nov 23, 2003
    #5
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Greenhorn
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    585
    Greenhorn
    Mar 12, 2005
  2. Replies:
    0
    Views:
    704
  3. Learning Cisco
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,103
    Walter Roberson
    Oct 15, 2005
  4. zillah
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    715
    zillah
    Nov 9, 2006
  5. Fred Atkinson

    Level 14 Privilege Level

    Fred Atkinson, Feb 22, 2007, in forum: Cisco
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    1,955
    Trendkill
    Feb 26, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page