Hardware/Infrastructure Opinion (if you had it to do over)
Posted on 2014-12-05
So I run a small shop of about 100 users. Our back office software is a mix of SQL based products, and our IT shop (aka me) is really setup for vendor support instead of a lot of IT overhead in house. However we aren't keen on, and some vendor products don't support a full cloud based option, so in house SQL is still a must.
The project at hand is migrating SQL from 2005 to 2012. Currently we don't have high avail, we run tran backups every 15 min and full nightly (with offsites...), and accept the potential for data loss/downtime with this setup. Given this project, I have some funds to step up my redundancy (not shooting for uber high 99.99% uptime maintenance windows are still ok). This post is primarily a discussion on what you would suggest. Here is my proposal.
2 - Physical Storage boxes clustered using Server 2012 and SMB 3.0 (this will be the landing point for the VM's). Mix of SSD/SATA/SAS partitions.
2 - Physical VM host servers, clustered using Server 2012 with VM's landin on the SMB 3.0 shares. Guests on this host will be all our clients. Exchange, File Server, Print Server, Web Server, App Servers, New SQL (all with the exception of SQL currently reside as VM's).
Plan on running all 4 boxes on a 10Gb switch with an uplink to our normal 1Gb switches.
The other option would be to run 2 SQL 2012 boxes in an AG, and not as VM's at all, but my way gets me redundancy everywhere not just SQL.