Forum Discussion
Windows Server 2022 Std migration
If what you're saying is that four virtual guests are hosted on the one Server 2012 R2 host then Server Standard is not going to work for you - at least not a single host.
You'll need either two Server Standard hosts or one Datacenter host - keeping in mind that for both cases, you still need to licence the guests separately (which shouldn't be an issue since they ought to be licenced now, but may become an issue if you want to upgrade their operating systems as well as the virtualisation host's.)
In relation to the questions:
- Yes, this has always been and still is best practice. Nothing at all - not even additional built-in roles should be installed or enabled on a domain controller;
- You can but there's nothing preventing you from cleaning up the existing domain. You're going to have to do a lot of inspection and seek clarification on what to keep and what can go in either scenario and trying to achieve too much, too fast is a recipe for messing something up. If you are still intent on migrating the domain/forest then maybe do it after you've successfully gotten yourself off the old Server 2012 R2 hypervisor and onto the new 2022 one;
- This is subjective since there's a world of difference between a bottom-end NAS and a top, but my short answer - unless you're spending a small fortune - is that it's better to use the NAS configured as a pass-through disk (meaning the hypervisor doesn't see it) and run a Server 2022-based file server guest VM through which to present it to users. There's far more chance the Windows Server ecosystem will outlive anything cool about a middle-of-the-range (or lower) NAS system, making it a more future-proof strategy.
Cheers,
Lain
- I've this new NAS:
https://www.synology.com/it-it/products/RS1221+
Capacity 12Tb with 800Gb SSD Cache and 32 Gb ramYeah, so it's a basic enterprise NAS and a very small domain.
If the NAS isn't running in a highly-available fibre channel storage and host configuration then we can skip that discussion entirely.
If I were in your position with a single hypervisor host, four guests and an basic NAS, I'd be doing what I mentioned above.
If you are actually running a highly available configuration (meaning separate hypervisors, which isn't described in the original question) and the NAS has dual controllers - or some other means of presenting to both hypervisors, then might cause me to change my answer for point 3 to suggesting you look at setting up clustering so that both hypervisors see the storage simultaneously.
Your screenshot shows and incredibly basic domain/forest. You're unlikely to get any benefit at all from migrating to a new forest/domain based on what that picture shows.
Just re-organise the organisational unit structure to your liking and that's probably all you need to do - assuming you don't have thousands, or tens of thousands of objects in those basic organisational units we can see in the picture.
Cheers,
Lain
- Thanks a lot !!
- I mention this part only for completeness as it doesn't sound like it's in your budget and also doesn't make sense if you only have four virtual machines.
The document below speaks to a high-end licencing model referred to as "per core". Again, this is only for completeness.
If you were to licence a physical host for all cores you have unlimited guest rights (only applies to Datacenter, not Standard). For this reason, it's profoundly expensive and only makes sense when you can achieve a very high guest density on a single host.
https://docs.microsoft.com/answers/storage/attachments/52952-licensing-brief-plt-introduction-to-microsoft-core.pdf
Cheers,
Lain
