hyper-v cluster storage

Ive been reading up abouy setting up a cluster environment to host my virtual machines. Im using Windows Hyper-V Server in a core-only installation. My issue is everything i read says that the VMs have to be hosted on shared storage (such as a san or network share), however is it possible to put the VMs on a share and replicate the data to another node? My thoughts behind this is if NodeA fails the  NodeB takes over completly including the storage, kind of a mirrored setup for backup. In the end of the day i would like to store a node off-site and bring up if nodeA and nodeB fail.

Thanks in advance
Who is Participating?

[Product update] Infrastructure Analysis Tool is now available with Business Accounts.Learn More

I wear a lot of hats...

"The solutions and answers provided on Experts Exchange have been extremely helpful to me over the last few years. I wear a lot of hats - Developer, Database Administrator, Help Desk, etc., so I know a lot of things but not a lot about one thing. Experts Exchange gives me answers from people who do know a lot about one thing, in a easy to use platform." -Todd S.

Cliff GaliherCommented:
No, what you want is not reasonably possible. 2012 and newer *does* support using an SMB share as the shared storage medium for topologies such as a scale-out file server, the architecture behind SOFS is that the file servers offering SMB shares still have shared storage backing them. So shared storage is still a key component. There is no reliable way to replicate that data in real-time (required for a good failover) and also have the storage failover properly in the event of a disaster.  You would see irreversible data corruption and is why some sort of shared storage is still required.
Cliff GaliherCommented:
I meant to add that there *is* 3rd-party virtual SAN software (so nothing available baked into windows) that can present logical disks as iSCSI drives to a compute cluster that does replicate writes simultaneously to local storage. That does not use SMB though and requires that your compute cluster be separate from your storage cluster (so a minimum of four servers instead of two) and so, with only rare exceptions, does that make more economical sense than just buying shared storage. SAS enclosures are not terribly expensive these days.

Experts Exchange Solution brought to you by

Your issues matter to us.

Facing a tech roadblock? Get the help and guidance you need from experienced professionals who care. Ask your question anytime, anywhere, with no hassle.

Start your 7-day free trial
Philip ElderTechnical Architect - HA/Compute/StorageCommented:
A simple setup, called an asymmetric cluster, would be as follows:
 + (2) Nodes
 ++ Dual E5
 ++ 64GB to 256GB of ECC or more if need be
 ++ Simple RAID 1 for host OS
 ++ Dual Intel i350T4 quad-port Gigabit
 ++ Dual 6Gb SAS HBAs

For storage:
 + DataON DNS-1640 2U 24 drive JBOD
 ++ OR
 + DataON DNS-1660 4U 60 drive JBOD

With the above pair of servers and SAS based Direct Attached Storage (DAS) you get 96Gb of aggregate throughput with virtually no latency. It is a much simpler setup than using iSCSI.

Storage arbitration is provided for by Storage Spaces so it's essentially built right in.

We have this setup in production for small (15 seats) to medium (80 seats) clients with server configurations being a bit more beefy units.
It's more than this solution.Get answers and train to solve all your tech problems - anytime, anywhere.Try it for free Edge Out The Competitionfor your dream job with proven skills and certifications.Get started today Stand Outas the employee with proven skills.Start learning today for free Move Your Career Forwardwith certification training in the latest technologies.Start your trial today

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.