Domain Controller, DHCP, etc -- HyperV VM vs HOST ?

I will be upgrading my domain controller hardware
and the below articles act like it is find to put
the domain controller, DHCP, etc functions on a
Windows Server 2012 R2 HyperV VM, not a
Windows Server 2012 R2 HyperV HOST

Does anyone have a reason to "NOT"
put these functions on a HyperV VM ?
==========================================================
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/virtual_active_directory_domain_controller_virtualization_hyperv(v=ws.10).aspx

http://www.altaro.com/hyper-v/reasons-not-to-make-hyper-v-a-domain-controller
http://www.altaro.com/hyper-v/demystifying-virtualized-domain-controllers-part-1-myths
http://www.altaro.com/hyper-v/4-reasons-your-hyper-v-host-should-only-run-the-hyper-v-role
finance_teacherAsked:
Who is Participating?
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.

Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
You can have a physical DC if you like...
But you CANNOT make your host a DC and a Host.  No professional with experience will advocate that.
Justin EllenbeckerIT DirectorCommented:
The only argument I usually make is that you should have at least 1 physical domain controller on the network. If you have a single Hyper-V host and all of your domain controllers are on it then no one can authenticate until you get that fixed. If you have a physical domain controller and that is all it does it helps prevent some of these issues if you ever have troubles with your Host.

I know your second article lists it is not required and I completely agree but I will still always have 1 physical domain controller in my environments. I do also rarely use cached credentials though so this adds to a requirement of having a DC on at all times. If you have multiple hyper-v hosts and are using HA and clustered shared volumes and good redundancy then you can forgo having a physical DC all together.
hecgomrecCommented:
Virtualization is not for everybody's budget.

To be able to put VM's you need to understand how they work and how they are going to be used.

I don't see a problem on using a big fat server for hosting several servers.  Now what kind of servers are you going to make virtual is the question.

Not all environments and budgets allow this as even though the machine is virtual still need resources from a host to function properly.  So sometimes is just better to have bare metal DC, GC, DHCP, DNS, RWA and VPN in an old HP G4 with 2 Dual cores at 2.8 with 12GB RAM, 2 NICs and 300GB of HDD for a small company of up to 50-80 and a new G8 with 4 Quad Cores at 3.2GHZ, 4 NICs, 96GB RAM and 4TB HDD to host 4 Virtual machines for Data and SQL application.

Servers don't come "chip" so a good combination can be achieve with not so old hardware and latest if you know what are the needs of the customer's company.  Besides all Hardware issues and/or problems, benefits, savings, etc. there is the other side of the coin with Licensing.

At the end... going virtual or "keeping the metal" is not just follow the trend but a practical and financial decision also.
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process AdvisorCommented:
Virtualization is not for everybody's budget.

This doesn't make sense - virtualization SAVES money - it doesn't cost more.  By virtualizing, with Server 2012, you get two installs instead of one -saving $800+ in license cost.

Further, yes, the server needs to be more powerful, but instead of having to pay $2000-$4000 PER SERVER, you pay, maybe $3000-$5000 for a SINGLE server that just adds RAM (cheap these days) and MAYBE an upgraded processor and a few extra hard drives.  FAR less expensive then a second complete server.

Plus there's the cost of electricity.  Fewer servers = lower electric costs.  If the server costs $20 per month in electric, then 1 physical server at $20/month is FAR cheaper than 3 at $60 total per month.

And I would NEVER recommend anyone use 10 year old hardware as their primary (or even secondary) server for 50-80 people - there can be no warranty on that and if it fails, your business could be DOWN for several hours or days - how much in lost productivity and potentially lost sales is that with even the low end staff estimate of 50 people?  If your business of 50 people can't afford $5000 in server hardware every 5 years or so, you're doing something SERIOUSLY wrong. Newer systems are added insurance against down time - and down time costs FAR MORE the more employees you have.

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
hecgomrecCommented:
Is always nice to here from big corporate IT staff how they don't really understand or see the small owner try to deal with overheads and cost-effective procedures.  Well thanks GOD the big OS companies doesn't totally force owner to change their machines every 4 year when their new version is out and they allow us somehow to update the current running software in a 4 years old computer.

Anyways is good to know there are still some people out there they think everything is running in the latest available technology.
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
Hyper-V

From novice to tech pro — start learning today.