none
Replicate a cluster to another Win2k12 Hyper-V host

    Question

  • We are testing Hyper-V 2012 and before I commit to a big test, would like some input on the possibility of this scenario.

    We have a small blade server attached to a SAN. We are anticipating creating a fail over cluster between two new blades within the blade server cabinent using Win2K12 Hyper-V.

    In case the whole blade server 'box' fails, does it make sense to: 

    a) have a phyiscal Server 2012 outside the blade server environment (with its own local storage, not a part of the cluster) to which we 'replicate' VMs from within the cluster

    or

    b) simply have one cluster member Server 2012 in the blade server and one Server 2012 cluster member in the physical server outside the blade server box (with its own local storage)?

    Thanks in advance for your commentary!


    Best Regards, Mark


    Tuesday, June 19, 2012 4:41 PM

Answers

  • Hi,

    Both a and b are acceptable.

    With a, you need a third computer as the replica server.  With b, a third computer is no need.

    • Marked as answer by fastzrex Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:06 PM
    Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:22 AM

All replies

  • Hi,

    Both a and b are acceptable.

    With a, you need a third computer as the replica server.  With b, a third computer is no need.

    • Marked as answer by fastzrex Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:06 PM
    Wednesday, June 20, 2012 7:22 AM
  • Thank you for your reply and confirmation of both scenarios.

    Cluster performance within the SAN should be better than cluster the physical storage on the 'outside' Server 2012 and I was trying to balance HA / performance with disaster recovery. The added cost of the third server is a consideration and will certainly factor into our final solution.

    But with Win2K12, we have great flexibility; way to go Microsoft server team!


    Best Regards, Mark

    Wednesday, June 20, 2012 1:13 PM