- Newest
- Most votes
- Most comments
Years ago, while at a different company, I had the responsibility of consolidating file servers onto a single file server. For expediency of the project, I chose to create a directory structure on the new server of <name of old server #>\drive letter<old server #'s directory structure & share>. I setup CNAMEs of the old servers to the new server. Then I set up shares to match shares off the old servers (so, just further down the directory tree). Upsides (1) This allowed the migration to be fairly seemless to my user community. (2) It also allowed my system administrators to easily identify the old data, as there wasn't any renaming. (3) the migration from a process and coordination was faster than if I started trying to implement a new structure. Downsides: (1) Because some of the old server names were long, this elongated the directory tree and in some cases, I couldn't copy data because the tree from the root was too long - exceeding windows path length (I'd have to pick a share further down the tree to shorten the path). (2) Years later users still referred to the old server names, newly hired system administrators didn't know which server it was or they didn't know that there were CNAME aliases in place, and thought they were different. (3) adding structure never took place, in some cases, users would copy from one "server" to "another" - and that just duplicated data on the same server, as they didn't know it was all one and the same.
Please approve or upvote if this has been helpful.
To work out the best distribution of file shares within Amazon FSx you will need to balance performance and cost. The data you have on your existing file shares will tell you if there are any issues with your current structure that can be addressed by using the features of Amazon FSx. Read the documentation
here
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/fsx/latest/WindowsGuide/optimize-fsx-costs.html
and
https://docs.aws.amazon.com/fsx/latest/WindowsGuide/performance.html
to help you decide
Thanks for the feedback. My request has less to do with cost and performance optimization and more to do with folder structure. I could do a better job restating. On a filesystem, should shares be created within the default share? What about right beneath the D:\ drive?
Relevant content
- Accepted Answerasked 4 years ago
- asked 5 years ago
- asked 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 2 years ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated a year ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated a year ago
- AWS OFFICIALUpdated 7 months ago
Thanks for the excellent analysis. I have the luxury of DFS namespace already in place but grouping shares by source file server is definitely a good idea!