| Product | Mindshare (%) |
|---|---|
| Windows Server Failover Clustering | 17.1% |
| InfoScale | 22.4% |
| DRBD | 15.0% |
| Other | 45.5% |
| Title | Rating | Mindshare | Recommending | |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| InfoScale | 4.2 | N/A | 100% | 4 interviewsAdd to research |
| DxEnterprise | 4.3 | 8.0% | 100% | 3 interviewsAdd to research |
| Author info | Rating | Review Summary |
|---|---|---|
| Engineer at Magal Solutions | 4.5 | We primarily use Windows Server Failover Clustering for its basic features like virtualization and failover. The system is stable but requires less dependency on network configuration. Exploring standard alternatives was considered as our network setup can become costly. |
| System Administrator at Confidential | 4.0 | I use Windows Server Failover Clustering for high availability and automated failover. It's stable, but unexpected shutdowns can complicate master election recovery. Initial setup requires extreme caution regarding disk configuration to prevent data loss on existing servers. |
| Manager at Stark International | 4.0 | I've used Windows Server Failover Clustering for seven years; it's stable and scalable with valuable features. However, inconvenient restarts for updates cause downtime, making me seek alternatives despite my 8/10 rating. |
| Project Manager at IDPoints Ltd. | 3.5 | I use Windows Server Failover Clustering for warehouse SQL servers due to its valuable hot-swap feature, allowing seamless server transitions during failures. However, setting it up is challenging as it relies on external storage instead of integrated solutions. |
| Solution Specialist at a consultancy with 51-200 employees | 4.0 | In my experience, Windows Server Failover Clustering effectively ensures server continuity by switching to another server if one goes down. However, the pricing is high. I deployed it using Microsoft Azure and didn't consider other solutions. |
| Systems Network Engineer at a computer software company with 11-50 employees | 3.5 | I primarily use this reliable solution for redundancy and failover. While it's stable, I find its licensing complex and expensive, particularly for hyper-converged. Microsoft's remote support also needs improvement due to language barriers and a lack of local presence. |
| Consultant at Unisys Corporation | 4.5 | I find this solution essential for server availability, offering geo-redundancy and improved business continuity. It's stable, though standard support could improve. Setup is straightforward, and the technology has evolved impressively over my twenty years of use. |
| Technical Specialist at a comms service provider with 10,001+ employees | 4.5 | I've found it stable, scalable, and highly available, with useful features. My main concern is the responsiveness of technical support. |
