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

finance_teacher
finance_teacher used Ask the Experts™
on
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
Comment
Watch Question

Do more with

Expert Office
EXPERT OFFICE® is a registered trademark of EXPERTS EXCHANGE®
Lee W, MVPTechnology and Business Process Advisor
Most Valuable Expert 2013

Commented:
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 Director
Commented:
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.
hecgomrecNetwork Administrator
Commented:
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.
Technology and Business Process Advisor
Most Valuable Expert 2013
Commented:
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.
hecgomrecNetwork Administrator

Commented:
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.

Do more with

Expert Office
Submit tech questions to Ask the Experts™ at any time to receive solutions, advice, and new ideas from leading industry professionals.

Start 7-Day Free Trial