Is it best to almost always use Hyper-V with 2012 R2 Server?
Posted on 2016-08-06
I need to implement a brand new AD domain for a remote location with less than 20 users.
There is no IT guy there, so I will be mainteining it remotely.
I hear that W2012 R2 comes with hyper-v. (Q1) Is it almost always best to use it? There will be one DC server that serves as a file server as well, and that is it for this project. There is no plan of installing another server there, so there is no multiple server instance on this box (if I went with hyper-v, or in any way).
Maybe it is better for me since I can control remote shutdown/restart more easily? Of course when the host server goes down, then no luck.
Also (Q2) disaster recovery may be easier from a remote location?
When the guest dies, I can take the backup and recover.
When the host dies, I can have someone take a computer, install hyper-v, then restore the image of the guest, without worrying about driver issues (because the computer may be a totally different box)...Is this how it would go? Then I would love to run this new DC on hyper-v.
The only downside that I could think of is (Q3) the performance issue, but I am only using it as a DC and a filer server. Also I assume it is just as easy to maintain guest instances, right?
Lastly, when you do this, (Q4) you need to install hyper-v first that Microsoft provides for free, then install a 2012 R2 instance?
I am sorry these are very basic questions, but I need to know if I am on the right direction and start learning hyper-v.