Would it be reasonable to run the Standard Server 2012 Edition (as opposed to Hyper-V edition) as a virtualisation host? Obviously there is a performance penalty but I guess it's not that bad - are there other disadvantages?
We want to run a simple setup consisting of a physical server with a couple of VMs, one for Exchange and one for Sharepoint. The users are all remote, not on the domain (it's like having a hosted Exchange and SharePoint service).
We're considering which virtualisation technology to use. As a non-profit organisation, it's important to us that our setup be simple to manage and that it be easy to bring in network admins that maybe aren't that experienced.
One of our guys set up Server 2008 core a while ago and found it was a nightmare - the command line is not familiar for a unix guy and management is a right pain if you're not on the domain, which we're not. So we asked ourselves, if we go with Windows (not yet decided), why not just pay a slight performance penalty and run the Standard Edition as the host? The loss in performance in our case is probably worth it as a trade-off for the ease of use. But one of our guys said that this should be avoided and he would never recommend it as the industry standard is VMWare ESXi, Citrix Xen or Hyper-V.
Is using the Standard 2012 edition as a host OS reasonable?