Server Fault is a question and answer site for system and network administrators. Join them; it only takes a minute:

Sign up
Here's how it works:
  1. Anybody can ask a question
  2. Anybody can answer
  3. The best answers are voted up and rise to the top

I currently have 2 dedicated servers, both running Windows Server 2003.

The first server is being used as a web server simply to handle large file uploads, averaging about 130 files per day each at around 100MB in size.

The second server is there as a backup server in case anything goes wrong with the first one.

I need some software to perform file replication. Each file that's uploaded to server 1 needs to be replicated over to the backup server, right at the time of upload.

I haven't got bucket loads of cash to spend unfortunately so I'm looking for a cheap & reliable option.

Does anyone have any ideas?

share|improve this question
Robocopy is free -- so is DFS – Richard West Feb 20 '10 at 20:52
up vote 2 down vote accepted

You can run robocopy with the monitor option. This would detect any new files on server 1 and copy them to server 2.

share|improve this answer
Seems to do exactly what i want. thank you. – Paul Hinett Feb 21 '10 at 13:25

Would DFS be an option?

share|improve this answer
If it's 2003 R2 I'd definitely go with DFS. If it's not R2 I'd go with a robocopy-based solution. I would rather trim my toenails with a turbocharged chainsaw than have to deal with the NTFRS replication engine again. – ThatGraemeGuy Feb 20 '10 at 21:10
Stock 2003 DFS ain't that bad either, but if it was Win2K I'd definitely join you in the queue for that chainsaw. – Le Comte du Merde-fou Feb 20 '10 at 23:45
I'd agree w/ mh-- RTM W2K3 NTFRS and DFS isn't horrible, though DFS-R is definitely worlds better. – Evan Anderson Feb 21 '10 at 2:38

Your Answer


By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.