SharePoint 2010 How far should you virtualise your deployment? The defence of Mckinley
In defence of project Mckinley
Following on from the design architecture Chris Mckinley, Dave Coleman and Alex Pearce kindly created I have asked them each to put together a brief defence of their plans. This is intended really to flesh out their rationale and Chris Mckinley has submitted his first so it appears below.
The argument for going fully virtual is based around the whole architecture being designed for hosting SharePoint sites. There is no requirement for a domain to be available for people to get to. If SharePoint is down then as far as the end user is concerned everything is down. With adequate vhd backups then all of the servers can just be copied to another iSCSI (or any storage device). In the case of physical hardware failure your downtime is just the length of time to install at least one Hyperv server. Thats it, just one OS. Fire up your vhds, you have your domain and SharePoint (which to the end user is all they want). Second hyperv nodes can then be added to the cluster at a leisurely rate to regain performance and fault tolerance.
With multiple physical servers you suddenly have much more work to do before your SharePoint (the end users universe) can be up and running. It’s also cheaper and better for the environment
Mckinley architecture deisgn
As a side note, please note that both Dave and I have set up our camps and are sitting quite firmly in them. This is purely for the purpose of creating an interesting collaborative debate across the community. Not because we are stubborn and cannot see the downsides of both our plans!
Please vote on your preffered architecture below: