Hyper-V Virtualisation on Windows 10 based server

[Deano727]

Hiya

 

I am wondering if anyone has had any experience with what I'm trying to do or if anyone is able to offer up any advice...

 

All of this is in the context of a small business with roughly 6 employees (pc based). We currently have a windows 10 desktop PC acting as our primary server. From this PC we manage our databases, store all of our files and run our proprietary software for our employees (as it needs live access to the databases). All of our company data is stored on and backed up to this server and from here we backup to another on-site physical device which is hidden in an undisclosed fire-proof safe which in turn backs up to the cloud. 3 users have physical desktops on which they work and access the server. We have a 4th desktop pc for processing and specific tasks and then 3 users who access the server via laptops either connected to the network physically or remotely via RDP/VPN.

 

For particular security, legislative and efficiency reasons, we need to do a fairly large upgrade which would involve new windows licenses, new hardware etc. In evaluating my options, there are two main options I see solving the problem. 

 

• Upgrade the server and all physical desktops.
• Upgrade the server and set up VM's for all users, on-site and remote. (has particular security features I'm very interested in and also less to break or upgrade in the future.)

 

Cost isn't really a big concern although it needs to be justifiable. I have no experience with VM's. 

 

My concerns/questions:

• Can we configure the VM's to run on the existing desktops/laptops?
• For basic operation, office suite, adobe acrobat, very low demand proprietary apps and basic web browsing (mostly simultaneous) what would the requirements be for each user in terms of CPU and memory allocation? Or rather, if all 8 users (and server overhead) were running, what would the ideal/min server hardware specs look like? I estimate on average 4GB memory making 32GB total? CPU something like an i7 (gen?)?
• In the event of a hardware failure on the server, how quickly/easily could we have it back up considering we have data backups and potentially replacement hardware?
• Would I need to purchase a copy of Windows for each VM or is there a way around that?
• Would Windows 10 be suitable for the server itself or would I be considerably better off with something else?

 

My hope is that we would have a similar cost input to upgrading the physical machines with the added benefits of security, less physical hardware to break, better future upgradability, scalability etc. I chose Hyper-V because it's made by Microsoft and seems the best fit.

 

Please feel free to leave your thoughts or make other suggestions.

 

[Electronics Wizardy]

3 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

Upgrade the server and all physical desktops.

Id do this. I don't see the point of vms for most desktop/workstation use. And it requires a lot of setup to work well.

 

3 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

Can we configure the VM's to run on the existing desktops/laptops?

Why would you run the vm on the workstations, Kinda defeats the point of the vms in my view

 

4 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

For basic operation, office suite, adobe acrobat, very low demand proprietary apps and basic web browsing (mostly simultaneous) what would the requirements be for each user in terms of CPU and memory allocation? Or rather, if all 8 users (and server overhead) were running, what would the ideal/min server hardware specs look like? I estimate on average 4GB memory making 32GB total? CPU something like an i7 (gen?)?

You don't even needs vms for this use, you can use rds and run it on one os, But licenseing isn't cheap no matter how you do it, and really just use desktops here

 

4 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

• Would Windows 10 be suitable for the server itself or would I be considerably better off with something else?

 

You will really want a server os, I still don't know why you want vms here.

 

5 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

with the added benefits of security,

Maybe a bit better with vms, but if you setup things like bitlocker right, its not a big difference.

 

5 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

less physical hardware to break

But also one big single point of failure. Id say more hardware to break as the users still need something to connect to the vms with

 

 

 

Id try to move everything to the cloud here and get rid of the onsite server, and just use normal laptops + desktops.

[Deano727]

@Electronics Wizardy, thanks so much for the feedback. I definitely see your point. In my country due to the poor infrastructure and unreliable internet & power it is really important that we keep the server on site. The business has also gone through very irregular changes, downscaling and relocating which was then just one person and has now scaled back up to 6 employees. This has left us in a strange place with mismatching hardware, operating systems and processes. 

 

Do you think the best would be one central server and then new, updated physical workstations for each user?

[Electronics Wizardy]

Just now, Deano727 said:

@Electronics Wizardy, thanks so much for the feedback. I definitely see your point. In my country due to the poor infrastructure and unreliable internet & power it is really important that we keep the server on site. The business has also gone through very irregular changes, downscaling and relocating which was then just one person and has now scaled back up to 6 employees. This has left us in a strange place with mismatching hardware, operating systems and processes. 

 

Do you think the best would be one central server and then new, updated physical workstations for each user?

Yup, id keep one central server then, and workstations for the users. This will also give a much better user experience for the users than running programs on a vm, and much cheaper software licensing.

 

How do you manage the workstations? Are they in a domain?

[NelizMastr]

You could also consider to setup an RDS session host, and replace the workstations with thin clients.

If there's no need for video/audio conferencing or 3D work, it's a good way to save a good few bucks.

CALs are cheaper than workstations.

[Deano727]

@Electronics Wizardy We manage each desktop independently although they are on a LAN setup to connect to printers and the server.

 

@NelizMastr Yeah that's something similar to what I had thought about although I wasn't even aware of CALs... Reading up on them it sure would be more cost effective. I'd still have to put out for the clients and it might not solve the issue with the 3 laptop users.

 

Is there a way to manage windows 10 desktops from one place?

[Electronics Wizardy]

11 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

s there a way to manage windows 10 desktops from one place?

Lots of solutions to do this. But they all have a pretty steep learning curve. AD + GPO + scrips is all local. Or use something like intune for cloud based.

 

11 minutes ago, Deano727 said:

 Yeah that's something similar to what I had thought about although I wasn't even aware of CALs... Reading up on them it sure would be more cost effective. I'd still have to put out for the clients and it might not solve the issue with the 3 laptop users.

 

Id say rds will be much more expensive. Those tasks can be ran on pretty cheap laptops + desktops, and if you go rds you need windows server + ad + rds + windows server cals + a faster server. And you need the time and knowledge to set it up.

 

 

[Deano727]

@Electronics Wizardy I really appreciate your help! I think you're right, it's a far simpler approach and will probably work out cheaper.