Whether under the DFS role to use a separate server?

I want to understand how it is correct to use the DFS role under a separate iron (or dev)?
For example, a file server role. Over time, will dokopatsya still glands and so there was no confusion among users and breaking directory links, it is planned to raise from DFS. Yes, you can immediately raise the DFS on the first server, but then increase the risks of failure of the whole scheme, when the first server crashes with the files, which was the role of the DFS. Hence the following questions:
1. Would it be correct under the role of DFS to provide a separate system that will only DFS?
2. Does it really make on a simple V-world? Or this server will go to the main load?
3. The DFS server will act as an intermediary in the transfer of files (i.e. all files will go through it)? Or will it just like a kind of dns server for failovich links, and it will just forward the requests to the right server and the files are loading network interface already specified server?
April 4th 20 at 00:37
3 answers
April 4th 20 at 00:39
You do not quite understand DFS-R/DFS N. itself, does not exist (since server 2008, before that it was the one role, perhaps the old article you are a little confused). There are 2 separate role of DFS-R (replication) and DFS-N (namespaces). Both of them presented already in your network, as soon as you raised the domain controller, and sinkat and provide access to SYSVOL and NETLOGON.
You need to decide where and what role you want to stand under the namespaces (DFS-N) understand the roles set up access to the balls, i.e. ozerskie links are configured. In your description is "repeaters", the customer goes to him for link and they redirect on the ball, which is hosted anywhere on the network (not necessarily on replica replica need for fault tolerance, not more). A replica (DFS-R) is, respectively, the servers that are configured on sinkut this case balls with the other replicas in the same replication group for the folder.
These roles can be combined, or to carry on different servers as you wish. The namespaces can be done by themselves and domain controllers, and under replicas to create faylopomoyki. If you have not thousands of users are constantly working with sharename docks and Masta balls, then load from the namespaces will not be much, and I wouldn't give for this case a separate server - doraga.) Can and replica to give namespaces, they're just not very hurt, just will lose from 2 role in case.
April 4th 20 at 00:41
0 - IMHO - the issue is somewhat exaggerated, but the reasoning is rather generally true
1 - resources permitting? I would definitely still would
2 - Yes, at least to start. you have the same car tools for assessing the burden! the same metrics through server Manager. not only that - ulalena welcome to my blog. even with dozens
3 - .. here the confusion, I do not remember not remember so much that did generally know when taxiing in a similar kolkhoz )).. but! we have Google! maybe catch up with colleagues and even four distribute. if not - see P2 in the part about the metrics, monitor all that is possible*! will be master of the situation, always )))

ps * - do not forget that monitoring itself may become a consumer of resources. on this there is still often necessary to include the head )))

pps I almost forgot, another cool thing, like, uh, for headless servers
it does not replace dispatcher servers, but often covers 99.99% of the needs of remote administration, even without the server Manager
April 4th 20 at 00:43
The role of DFS-N is perfectly combined with DC, DNS, DHCP. To allocate a separate server makes no sense. DFS-R should be put on the FS.

Find more questions by tags System administrationFile serverWindows Server