We are setting up a load-balanced environment for a DotNetNuke web application in IIS 7.5, two servers, both Windows 2008 SP1, in the same domain. Currently we use NLB, but ARR is probably taking over as the better load balancing method.
The logging service (our own), the cache service (DNN) and some other processes need access to a physical disk location.
Option 1
According to DotNetNuke's documentation, we should create an UNC share and put the entire web application in it and let each IIS config point to the UNC path for its application root. I've learned in the past that this is considered bad practice and a performance and security risk.
Option 2
Instead, I would believe using an UNC share for any part of the application that needs to write to a folder, and when it needs to be shared among the applications (like logging), would be a better option. The virtual ApplicationPoolIdentity could be given rights on that share, if possible, or otherwise a limited rights user.
Option 3
Instead of a share, we could also keep all files locally and adopt file replication services. This seems cumbersome, but potentially the safest option in terms of security.
Which of the three options (or do you know a fourth?) is best applied in terms of security, reliability and performance? I've a hard time to find authoritative resources on this subject.
