Fault tolerant ts cluster?

  • Thread starter Thread starter Paul Jensen
  • Start date Start date
P

Paul Jensen

Guest
I know that 2003 doesn't provide fault tolerance for terminal server
services, but does 2008 address this?

Is there any other way to provide high availability for terminal services?

It's not load balancing I'm looking for it's high availability.

Thanks!
 
RE: Fault tolerant ts cluster?

In Windows Server 2008 a new feature called Terminal Services Session Broker
is available. This feature can be used for high availability. On the MS site
you'll find this info about the session broker :
It provides a simpler alternative than Microsoft Network Load Balancing for
Terminal Services. While not limited to a specific number of servers, the
feature provides significant value to farms of two to five servers. With TS
Session Broker, new sessions are distributed to the least-loaded server
within the farm—optimizing performance—and users can reconnect to an existing
session without having to know specific information about the server where
the session was established. IT managers can use the feature to map the
Internet Protocol (IP) address of each terminal server to a single Domain
Name System (DNS) entry. This configuration can also provide fault tolerance;
if one of the farm servers is unavailable, the user will connect to the next
least-loaded server in the farm.


"Paul Jensen" wrote:

> I know that 2003 doesn't provide fault tolerance for terminal server
> services, but does 2008 address this?
>
> Is there any other way to provide high availability for terminal services?
>
> It's not load balancing I'm looking for it's high availability.
>
> Thanks!
>
 
Re: Fault tolerant ts cluster?

On Dec 21, 2:45 am, Bart Van Vugt
<BartVanV...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> In Windows Server 2008 a new feature called Terminal Services Session Broker
> is available. This feature can be used for high availability. On the MS site
> you'll find this info about the session broker :
> It provides a simpler alternative than Microsoft Network Load Balancing for
> Terminal Services. While not limited to a specific number of servers, the
> feature provides significant value to farms of two to five servers. With TS
> Session Broker, new sessions are distributed to the least-loaded server
> within the farm--optimizing performance--and users can reconnect to an existing
> session without having to know specific information about the server where
> the session was established. IT managers can use the feature to map the

I did read that, but it sounds more like it will just reconnect a user
to the same ts server if they loose a connections. Would it recognize
that one ts server is dead and re-direct all users to the other ts
server? Why doesn't MS make terminal services cluster aware like SQL
server?

Citrix has a full TS cluster solution, why doesn't MS?





> Internet Protocol (IP) address of each terminal server to a single Domain
> Name System (DNS) entry. This configuration can also provide fault tolerance;
> if one of the farm servers is unavailable, the user will connect to the next
> least-loaded server in the farm.
>
> "Paul Jensen" wrote:
> > I know that 2003 doesn't provide fault tolerance for terminal server
> > services, but does 2008 address this?

>
> > Is there any other way to provide high availability for terminal services?

>
> > It's not load balancing I'm looking for it's high availability.

>
> > Thanks!
 
Re: Fault tolerant ts cluster?

If one server is dead all new connections will go to the other server. The
other option is buy Citrix.

"paul.a.jensen@gmail.com" wrote:

> On Dec 21, 2:45 am, Bart Van Vugt
> <BartVanV...@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote:
> > In Windows Server 2008 a new feature called Terminal Services Session Broker
> > is available. This feature can be used for high availability. On the MS site
> > you'll find this info about the session broker :
> > It provides a simpler alternative than Microsoft Network Load Balancing for
> > Terminal Services. While not limited to a specific number of servers, the
> > feature provides significant value to farms of two to five servers. With TS
> > Session Broker, new sessions are distributed to the least-loaded server
> > within the farm--optimizing performance--and users can reconnect to an existing
> > session without having to know specific information about the server where
> > the session was established. IT managers can use the feature to map the

> I did read that, but it sounds more like it will just reconnect a user
> to the same ts server if they loose a connections. Would it recognize
> that one ts server is dead and re-direct all users to the other ts
> server? Why doesn't MS make terminal services cluster aware like SQL
> server?
>
> Citrix has a full TS cluster solution, why doesn't MS?
>
>
>
>
>
> > Internet Protocol (IP) address of each terminal server to a single Domain
> > Name System (DNS) entry. This configuration can also provide fault tolerance;
> > if one of the farm servers is unavailable, the user will connect to the next
> > least-loaded server in the farm.
> >
> > "Paul Jensen" wrote:
> > > I know that 2003 doesn't provide fault tolerance for terminal server
> > > services, but does 2008 address this?

> >
> > > Is there any other way to provide high availability for terminal services?

> >
> > > It's not load balancing I'm looking for it's high availability.

> >
> > > Thanks!

>
>
 
Back
Top