HyperV - 2008R2 v 2012
The virtualisation project that we had planned last April was shelved due to half of our funds being diverted elsewhere. It is now back on the cards so the planning has started again.
When we started the initial planning (and after ditching the Citrix idea) we decided to move to HyperV - at the time 2008R2 was the version we would be running. Now by the time we get going I assume the Server 2012 version of HyperV will be available. So do we make the decision to use a tried and tested 2008R2 version or do we bite the bullet and move straight to 2012 (without waiting for 2012 SP1).
What have colleagues on here done?
I would personally go for Server 2012 and do a slower project, get non-critical servers on it first such as Print Servers that can be easily replaced and trial it. For everyone like me there will be others who will advise caution.
I would say make sure your servers new or old, have full driver support for Server 2012 though before you start, as this could cause you issues, I have 2012 installed and I am setting it up as Virtual Desktop Pool (using HyperV) but some drivers have been diffciult to say the least.
Originally Posted by Achandler
I hadn't thought about drivers however I don't think we are going to be virtualising current servers - we will be re-building them from scratch and taking our time to do it. Some of the servers are running 2003 (not even 2003R2) so we've decided to go slowly with fresh installs.
I think this will be better for us. I will be mving WDS and MDT first - from scratch. Then de-commissioning the old ones after testing - these are non critical.
Yeh 2012 is so much better for Hyper-V. Its really really good.
The replica feature alone is worth the upgrade.
Yeap 2012, no sense in starting on the back foot. 2012 Hyper-V is already avalible and several on here are already using it successfully.
Also be aware that System Center 2012 is not supported on Server 2012 until System Center 2012 SP1 is shipped next year; I had problems taking backups with DPM 2012 in particular, forcing me to roll back to Server 2008 as my live date is too close to take a chance that the service pack is delayed/broken. If you don't need System Center or your schedule allows you to wait for the service pack then I would agree with the advice to go with Server 2012. You can run SC SP1 in beta but I wouldn't go live with it....
Server 2012 was a significant upgrade for Hyper-V, for your physical hosts at least you should be using it, RAM deduplication if nothing else makes it worthwhile. Personally I'd still run 2008R2 VMs on top of that, but that's just personal preference ;)
I agree with that - 2012 on the physical servers and 2008R2 on the VMs. That way you get to use all the new Hyper-V features and the clients still get a familiar UI (i.e. a start menu!!) if they're logging into a 2008R2 server. Wouldn't use a VDI pool as each remote user then has to have its own VM (as far as I can tell) and can't make use of any server resources that aren't being used.
Thanks everyone for their advice and notes on here.
We've ordered two HP servers today and due to budget cuts will have to create our VMs on these as the SAN purchase is a no go at the moment. There may be more funds in the next couple of weeks as we reach the end of the school year but I cannot guarantee it. I am holding out for an HP SAN but if the full budget doesn't get released then I will get a cheaper one - maybe a QNAP.
I think the plan will be to run HyperV12 on the physical machines with our servers running 2008R2 - which is what our LEA is just reaching :-)
You can run HyperV 2012 vm's from a SMB 3.0 share ie windows 2012 file server. From what i have read its nearly as quick as iscsi
I would personally run 2012 vm's for DC's,DNS,DHCP and use 2008 r2 for any software/applications that don't support 2012.