Disk Group Design Proposal using DFS and FRS

[Ruben_Conteno]

If we use DFS and FRS to handle the location and redundancy of the disk groups using Copy1, is it still necessary to create  copy 2 to send the committed data to, or can we just do an in-place commit on Copy1? What would be the limitation of having just one copy when using DFS and FRS?

[Jeffrey_Jandi]

Hello Ruben and thanks for using Community to post your question.

It is perfectly valid to have DFS and FRS handle the location and redundancy of the Disk Groups and you can do a commit on just Copy 1.  The benefit that multiple OnBase Disk Group copies provide is the ability to retrieve documents from other copies when Copy 1 is unavailable for any reason.

If Copy 1 is unavailable for any reason (server issues, network issues, etc), users will not be able to retrieve documents regardless of any replication that is done outside of OnBase.  In a properly configured multiple copy Disk Group, when Copy 1 is unavailable, retrievals will automatically attempt to retrieve the document from Copy 2 and up.

Keep in mind that in both cases, archives will always fail if Copy 1 is unavailable as that copy is always written first.

[Ruben_Conteno]

Thank you for your advice Jeff. We are in the process of upgrading the OnBases System and are also exploring for ways to improve the overall solution.  In addition to using DFS and FRS for Copy 1, I like the idea of having a second copy of the documents as another layer of protection. We will present these ideas to the desicion makers and go from there.

[Kevin_Corbett]

I agree with Jeff.  Also consider that DFS and FRS will provide for protection from server access failure (such as a server going down or a network segment becoming unavailable) - not necessarily user error.  For example, if someone with rights to the UNC path were to delete files manually in one of the replicas - that action would then be applied to all other replicas.  This particular problem is solved by retaining the OnBase secondary copy - because OnBase will transparently find the surviving copy of the file and allow the administrator to detect the problem and to take corrective action.

Copy 2 (and any other secondary copies and backup copies) are a strategy for some similar and some different objectives than DFS with FRS.  As long as you understand what removing a secondary copy means to your overall high availability then you are in a good place to make your decision.

[Ruben_Conteno]

Thank you for your Advice Kevin. I like the idea of having more than one copy of the documents available at all times. We are planning to upgrade the OnBase system from v6.2 to 11.0 and  present the option to use DFS, FRS, and OnBase multiple copies for redancy and high availability.