Ask your opinion on this

Hi all,
We are going to rebuild our DR site which has 12 servers. Recenty, we
purchasd three Dell 2950 servers with 16GB RAM [Node1, node2 and node3] which
are going to host 12 VMs.

If I build three nodes A/A/P cluster which Node1 and Node 2 host 6VMs and
Node3 is the passive node. So, In case node1 or node2 fails, it will fail to
the node3. (If Node1 and Node2 are dead, I guess I need to buy more memory
on Node 3 to host all 12 VMs)

or I just need to build two nodes A/P cluster with 32GB RAM. Node1 will
host 12 VMs and Node2 is the passive node. If Node1 fails, all VMs will
failover to Node2.

or go for A/A/A cluster

What do you recommend in terms of VM?

Thank you!

<Cross-posting this to the Clustering NG as well.>

This is of course a matter of opinion and everyone's is different, but as
long as you don't exceed the capabilities of your cluster nodes (i.e. -
don't scale up your VM loads so that one node's clustered services or
applications can't fail over to the remaining nodes, due to a shortage of
resources), there's no reason you can't go for an all-Active configuration.

--
Ryan Sokolowski
MVP - Clustering
MCT, MCITP x3, MCTS x7, MCSE x2, CCNA, CCDA, BCFP


"John" <John@discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:27706131-7986-4AE7-85F9-BF34050F8765@microsoft.com...
> Hi all,
> We are going to rebuild our DR site which has 12 servers. Recenty, we
> purchasd three Dell 2950 servers with 16GB RAM [Node1, node2 and node3]
> which
> are going to host 12 VMs.
>
> If I build three nodes A/A/P cluster which Node1 and Node 2 host 6VMs and
> Node3 is the passive node. So, In case node1 or node2 fails, it will fail
> to
> the node3. (If Node1 and Node2 are dead, I guess I need to buy more
> memory
> on Node 3 to host all 12 VMs)
>
> or I just need to build two nodes A/P cluster with 32GB RAM. Node1 will
> host 12 VMs and Node2 is the passive node. If Node1 fails, all VMs will
> failover to Node2.
>
> or go for A/A/A cluster
>
> What do you recommend in terms of VM?
>
> Thank you!
>