25 user shop. Grand total of 500 gigs of data, including archives, maybe 100 gigs active data. Very low bandwidth usage.
I've got a 2012 server running file services only. I've got a 2003 server running AD, DNS, and remote services (no terminal services, VPN only). Only apps are Trend Micro AV and Quickbooks server side supporting two clients irregularly run. Websites hosted elsewhere, Exchange hosted elsewhere, no server based apps, no SQL, no SharePoint, no nothing.
My intent is to increase the redundancy of the system. Right now, if the 2012 server goes down, there is no way to access files. If the 2003 DC goes down, can access files locally within network but no remote access.
I was originally going to buy another 2012 server, then some NAS like Synology or QNAP and create a two node cluster. But besides the fact that a lot of small business consultants don't know much about clustering, others said it was overkill, updates difficult, etc.
So, I am now looking at having two 2012 servers. DC's (AD, DNS, DHCP, VPN) will be replicated between them. Instead of an external NAS as required with clustering, I'll use internal RAID 10 disks in each server and use DFS for synchronization.
Question: Are there holes in this approach? It certainly seems simpler and less costly equipment wise. Also, it has been recommended that I virtualize each server for better performance. Thoughts?
TIA