Server 2012 r2 - Using 2 hyper v hostservers with SMB

That's what i gathered. What options do i have if i have 2 host servers and big enough hard drives?  If i use hyper-v replica, will i just lose high availability? I don't mind not having real-time replication.

I'm having issues finding a tutorial on setting up a 2 node replica in one location.

In Hyper-V replica, they aren't nodes. So that is probably throwing off your searches.  TechNet has an article on setting up Hyper-V replica. You'll have some decisions to make regarding authentication methods, etc.

I found this but have one more question.  Could we use these replica hosts as load balancing? I have 12 Vm and want to use 6/6 on each server.

http://www.aidanfinn.com/?p=12147

Load balancing? No, not really. As Aidan rightly points out in that article, HV-Replica is not intended to be a replacement for a failover cluster, which is basically what you keep circling back around to.

If i have one VM that's failing, I won't be able to turn up just that one on the other?

Not in the way you are thinking, no. You'd have an intricate and fragile cross connection simply due to the fact that it isn't how replica was designed.

I'm thinking this. If i have 1 server hosting 6VM and replicate it across then have the second to have the other 6vm and have it replicate. It would be a poor mans disaster recovery but utilizing both hosts servers resources. Does this make sense?

As I said, it isn't designed to do that. That is never a setup I'd recommend. Too many moving parts, and the *worst* time to find out there are problems is in a real disaster recovery scenario. It all looks great on paper, but you'd only use it when a real outage happens, and when that occurs, you'll have enough on your plate that "fixing" Hyper-V Replica because you did an unsupported topology won't be high on your list...and you'll still be broken and down because you pursued this path.  

But hey, your job, your network. I am not going to keep repeating myself. This is the *fourth* time I've said no to basically the same thing...

Unfortunately this is the way my manager would like it setup. The management part of it is going to interesting. We have 12 VM on one host at the moment and the plan is to V to V using SCVMM 6 over to host2 and configure replication with 6 "primary" on each server. I agree cluster is a much better arrangement but in this crazy world.. sometime we have to bend.

Trees bend in the wind. But a tornado can still rip them out of the ground. And you can't bend them like a pretzel. Being flexible is laudable. But there are clearly limits, and it is my recommendation that this, indeed, crosses that line. I assume you came here and asked because you *wanted* expert advice. But it seems you really just wanted to validate your decision no matter what. And I won't do that. Good luck though.

I agree with everything you said. I got my expert advice and appreciate it! Higher ups are aware of this and want to move forward. It's insane to me to continue but I guess we'll see what happens.