I am part of an service company that has a server solution that hosts different field software to talk to industrial alarms and such. The original implementation didn't make use of any kind of virtualized server nor did it have any type of special backup software. We had a catastophicc failure on site a week ago and it took way longer than the original designers intended to restore the servers and their software.
All the servers have installed on them is IIS and some SQL databases. They don't do anything else.
I was thinking about changing the design to run from a virtualized server. In my mind this would have several benefits:
- Fast and flexible recovery(virtual image is hardware agnostic and is typically a single file)
- Simple, one click restorations are the common place
Essentially using a virtual machine seems like the best idea for disaster recovery. Is this the case?
My virtual setup was going to be windows server 2008 r2 with a Hyper V role. I was going to make the virtual server run all the service and in field software and have virtual backup software on the bare bones metal OS. Is this a good idea? Also, would the performance benefits be much better if I used a stand alone HYper V server installation instead of a Hyper V role?