This DAG seems extremely flaky and problematic and poorly designed. It is such a shame as it seems like a good idea in theory.
This DAG seems extremely flaky and problematic and poorly designed. It is such a shame as it seems like a good idea in theory.
A support case with who? Microsoft? I don't have a time to be calling microsoft every time the DAG decides to come up with a new problem.
I would be interested in some of that evidence because i find that microsoft likes to convince itself that it creates better software than it actually does.
I appreciate your efforts and without people like you making blogs, I don't know how a lot of these MS products would ever function properly. As a lot of these sort of "fixes" are not in the microsoft training nor available in official documentation. I
have experienced similar problems with SCCM, WDS/MDT, DFS and so on..
I have a DAG with two servers and one witness server. When I run Get-DatabaseAvailabilityGroup -Identity XXXXX -status | fl on the Primary Active Manager server the results reports the Witnessshareinuse as Primary but when ran on the other the Witnessshareinuse is empty. Is this correct?
Hi Tim,
Can we have FSW on a Mailbox server which is a part of a DAG?
What impact will it have if I have 11 member servers in a DAG?
Since its an odd number of nodes It wont need an FSW but what if one node goes down, what will be the possible impact?