Do i go back to a more conventional setup

[ColinP]

Hi, Im planning on updating our hardware and OS. we are not a massive school, about 500 under 13's

 

At the moment we are running a hyper-v Fail over cluster on server 2008, but is that really the setup i want to use going forward?

 

Ive seen a few posts about you no longer needs sans with server 2016 as it can do the seperate controller parts within its os.

 

If i went back down this root of a more classical single host with fixed disks - still running hyper-v, i would effectively be able to get 50% resources more as in the cluster, one half is just spare machine with the capacity of the main host.

I would also lose alot of the compexivitys of a cluster.

 

Our setup would endup

 

Physical DC

Physical HypervHost With Each VM esstenialy a service /File /Print/AV/Accounts/MIS etc

Physical Backup

 

Ofiice365 for emails

 

What are your thoughts?

[MartinT]

Two Hyper-V hosts with failover of important virtual servers to the other one. Keeps both busy but still gives you almost instant switch over if one host fails.