Architecture for small (~5 VM) operation

[DBordello]

Hello,

I am looking to replace the infrastructure for a small, 10 client network. At the moment, the office is ran by a single server, performing AD, Exchange, and file sharing. Any redundancy is handled at the hardware level (dual PSU, RAID, etc).

However, we might have some future roles in the future. Therefore, I would like to transition to a virtualized environment. I'd like to pick up the following capabilities:

• Ability to migrate VMs
• Resilient to losing a node

As always, costs are a concern. I'd like to keep the target at ~$10k. Therefore, Hyper-V seems promising. That being said, many of the neat features require shared storage, which isn't really justified at this scale and introduces a single point of failure.

Therefore, the hyperconverged storage is attractive. Not only does it reduce the need for traditional shared storage, could even be more resilient. Storage Spaces Direct is exciting. I was thinking 4 x SuperMicro nodes, with Windows Server 2016 Standard. However, I just realized it requires the Datacenter license, which would be more expensive than the hardware.

What would you recommend for this type of setup? Other vSAN-esk setups? Any idea what the cost of Starwind? ScaleIO? Etc?

Thoughts?

 

[DavidRa]

I keep hearing good things about DataOn Storage - they have a 2 node in a single box solution for exactly this sort of thing. No idea on pricing though ...

 

[DBordello]

I will have to check out DataOn. The pricing is what rules out the SMB market.

 

[KamiCrazy]

For such a small setup, I would recommend hyper-v replica and call it a day. It isn't as nice as actual live migration/vmotion but I think it will be just fine. If you really insist on that capability then kvm is your best bet. Go linux and sort out some other network shared storage (I recommend lizardfs).

You'll still encounter some licensing issues probably. However it is far cheaper than datacenter edition.

Actually now I think about it, even with any other virtualisation option you'd have the same licensing issues, cause thats microsoft for ya.

 

[ecosse]

Do you actually need an on-premise presence?

 

[Jannis Jacobsen]

get 2012 r2 standard, install on 2 hosts and enable hyper-v, that way you are licensed for 4 vms.
(dont run anything but hyper-v on the hosts to stay licensed)
then you just need 1 license for the last vm

-jannis

 

[DBordello]

Hyper-V replica sounds like the way to go. Any concerns about using replica for Exchange, AD, etc?

And yes, we'd like to keep everything on premise.

 

[KamiCrazy]

Exchange is not supported for hyper-v replica. This is because exchange has its own native high availability.

In my own testing it works fine though. Just understand that if it goes wrong you won't get support from Microsoft.

If you can afford it then just get two exchange server licences and avoid replica for this specific workload.

There are no issues with replicating an active directory server.

 

[DBordello]

I was just looking in to the Exchange HA options. What I really need to do is contact MS for licensing costs. Estimated cost for an additional Exchange Server license?

 

[KamiCrazy]

Full disclosure: I work for a SPLA partner.

In my opinion buying multiple exchange server licences at small scale is not financially sensible. Unless you really need a one off up front cost.

Especially for exchange where you might want multiple servers for HA you are far better off at small scales to licence by SPLA.

That means paying a small monthly cost per user. However SPLA rights mean you are allowed to design whatever topology you want.

You are also protected for upgrades. You will automatically qualify for latest exchange releases when they happen.

 

[Evan]

We run many 4 node MSX clusters but unless your a large company like ours I would seriously consider outsourcing it... O365 Mail at $5/month is hard to go past when you consider exchange licenses run to a few k$ from memory + CAL.

 

[DBordello]

The O365 licensing does look attractive. However, I believe there are some legal requirements that are (perhaps) easier keeping everything on site.

 

[Evan]

If you have a concrete legal reason to be in house then no choice. If person tells you there is a legal reason to be in house 90% of the time it's not true though, some careful research is required.

 

[Markus]

I would second the opinion with hosted office...

Where are you placed? US / EU?
Regards
Markus

 

[DBordello]

We are in the US.

You are probably right, we could move email off site.

 

[DBordello]

Office 365 is something we will have to look in to. In general, it could replace Office 2016 licenses (including Access), and Exchange licenses. $20/mo for E3 seems a bit steep. However, that is compared to $400 for Office + $XXX for Exchange + CAL.

 

[markarr]

Also one thing nice about 365 is the storage space, mailbox sizes can quickly balloon filling your local storage.