Hey all - I just took my 70-659 class, so I am (of course) considering switching my home/lab setup to Hyper-V from ESX. Thinking about it, I realized there are SO MANY options and I thought I would throw out a semi-poll to those of you who have used
it already and/or have experience with many of the options.
SO - I will try to make this as organized as possible, delineating my parameters. I have just renewed my TechNet Pro subscription, so there are no worries about licensing.
1. Gear
2 Shuttle Servers with the following hardware:
Intel i7 870 @ 2.93 Ghz (quad with HT)
16GB RAM
3 NICs (1 on-board Realtek 8168, 2 PCI-X Intel 82576)
1TB Seagate ES.2 HD (7200 RPM, 64MB cache)
1 ReadyNAS Pro 6 populated with 6 WD 2TB Green drives (variable rotation, 64MB cache)
1 16-port unmanaged Netgear switch
1 R6200 Netgear router
2. Current Config
I've got each server running ESX, and running all the VMs off the NAS via NFS (easier than iSCSI),
servers clustered together, domain controller as a VM, DHCP on the router.
As you can tell, this setup is mostly about my laziness rather than performance optimization, so keep
that in mind please :).
3. Options Going Forward
I've been weighing some options, and I'm honestly not sure what would be the best as far as flexibility,
performance and longevity. I can easily account for performance hits - this is mostly just a lab for me to
do stuff I'm not allowed to do at work (enterprise, no DC access); that being said, I would like it to work
as well as possible (obviously).
I will set out each of the options I've been thinking about, and say that the common change will be
setting up an iSCSI target on the NAS in order to accommodate clustering.
Option 1:
Each server running Server Core 2012 with Hyper-V installed, one actually running the DC instance
and the other running the DHCP instance.
Option 2:
Each server running Server Core 2012 with Hyper-V installed, but DC and DHCP as VMs rather than
physical.
Option 3:
Each server running Hyper-V Server 2012, everything VMs.
I have never been able to get a straight answer out of any of the MS people I've spoken to as far as differences in features between Server 2012, Server Core 2012 and Hyper-V Server 2012, or overhead required to run each of them (thereby consuming host resources
I could use for VMs). The party line seems to be "run Server 2012 in either flavor so you can get the most out of your host", but since I would most likely be using the hosts as pure hypervisors rather than server instances (except for my first
option up there), my instincts say using Hyper-V server with management VMs would be the most flexible and leave me with more host resources.
I know many or all of you get paid to do this stuff, so I appreciate your time on it, but rather than scoff at someone looking for free advice, please take it as an opportunity to have fun with a poser, and discuss what you think the benefits and pitfalls
are of each technology.
Thanks in advance!