nanog mailing list archives
Re: Anycast and windows servers
From: Steve Francis <steve () expertcity com>
Date: Fri, 20 Feb 2004 09:59:25 -0800
Given your initial question was, I think, about the OSPF implementation on windows - I used it on NT 4.0, when it was part of the routing and remote access option, to implement fault tolerant routing through some windows based firewalls. It worked fine then. So long as you minimize the services running on the windows box, it was stable enough. Have not used window servers since NT 4.0, but I don't imagine its gotten worse.
Buhrmaster, Gary wrote:
Depending on the service being provided, Microsoft has their own clustering solution which will perform failover. Sometimes choosing full vendor supported technologies is the easiest path. With Windows 2003 Server they even support geographically disperses failover. Info at: http://www.microsoft.com/windows2000/technologies/clustering/default.asp Gary-----Original Message----- From: Daniel Senie [mailto:dts () senie com] Sent: Friday, February 20, 2004 6:39 AM To: Sean Donelan Cc: nanog () merit edu Subject: Re: Anycast and windows servers At 05:43 AM 2/20/2004, you wrote:On Thu, 19 Feb 2004, Patrick W.Gilmore wrote:Honestly, I do not know about OSPF (or BGP) on Windows,however, youcan just static route to the Windows box(es). Sure, ifthe OS hangs,the interface will stay up and the static route willstill push bits atHence the reason why I want the route to cease beingthe dead box, but it will work (FSVO "work"). Besides, how often does Windows crash? <snicker>advertised if the boxConnect the server(s) to APC MasterSwitch or equivalent hardware. Monitor the server box(es) for responsiveness. If/when it fails, the monitoring station can instruct the MasterSwitch to reboot (power cycle, really) the box. Stuff is pretty inexpensive (certainly less so than load balancers)."fails."I'm trying to avoid putting yet another server load balancerbox in frontof the windows box to withdraw the route so a different"working" box willbe closest. It may be an oxymoron, but I'm trying to makethe windowsMy initial thought last night was in fact the use of load balancers. But then you need to think about redundant load balancers and so on.service (if not a particular windows box) as "reliable" as possible without introducing more boxes than necessary.
Current thread:
- Anycast and windows servers Sean Donelan (Feb 18)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Joe Abley (Feb 19)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Patrick W . Gilmore (Feb 19)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Sean Donelan (Feb 20)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Alex Bligh (Feb 20)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Robert Boyle (Feb 20)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Daniel Senie (Feb 20)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Sean Donelan (Feb 20)
- <Possible follow-ups>
- RE: Anycast and windows servers Buhrmaster, Gary (Feb 20)
- Re: Anycast and windows servers Steve Francis (Feb 20)