<jimihendrix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Witch is the beter option for me,
>
>I have one windows 2003 standard edition ftp server in my perimiter sinds
>more clients keep connecting (now 300, planning for 700) and the ftp site has
>to be available allways I was thinking about
>
>set up a windows 2003 server cluster , or let NLB take care of the load on
>the ftp hosts and do I have to set up a shared storage (san ) for NLB...
>
>what is the best option for redundance ( microsoft way )
>
>all the comments are very welcome..

<jimihendrix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:

>Jeff ,
>
>thanks for the feedback, but can you tell me why the windows cluster is a
>better option then NLB..
>that its more expensive I know because of the OS version of windows, but are
>the NLB hosts not as relieable as the cluster..?

>Thanks in advance
>
>"Jeff Cochran" wrote:
>
>> On Thu, 8 Feb 2007 06:18:01 -0800, jimi hendrix
>> <jimihendrix@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
>>
>> >Witch is the beter option for me,
>> >
>> >I have one windows 2003 standard edition ftp server in my perimiter sinds
>> >more clients keep connecting (now 300, planning for 700) and the ftp site has
>> >to be available allways I was thinking about
>> >
>> >set up a windows 2003 server cluster , or let NLB take care of the load on
>> >the ftp hosts and do I have to set up a shared storage (san ) for NLB...
>> >
>> >what is the best option for redundance ( microsoft way )
>> >
>> >all the comments are very welcome..
>>
>> None of this has anything to do with FTP. Read up on NLB and
>> understand the fail-over capabilities, clustering would normally be
>> the smarter, but more expensive choice.
>>
>> Jeff
>>