Windows Server 2012 R2

anything I don't mind · 16 Mar 2015 at 15:20

If you are implementing new servers are you all using 2012?

I have to create a new sql 2012 server and considering using server 2012 r2, do you think this is the best choice?

As much as I hate 2012 i think I am going to have bite the bullet and just put up with it.

At least with R2 they have the ability to right click on the start menu, I am just realy going to miss the old server manager, it was so much more logical.

Is anyone still implementing 2008 because they dislike 2012 so much? Or is it just me who has held off this long?

paradigm · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:03

Our estate is mainly 2012 or 2012R2 (R2 is much better in all honesty).

oli356 · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:25

I implement servers at work for people to use to do work on. Remote Desktop to and run software on there.. On a few occasions I've had to deploy 2012.... I hate it. It's confusing to work around and even something like terminal services / Remote Desktop services is confusing on 2012!

Felix · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:32

Only 2012.

anything I don't mind · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:32

I still have some 2003 servers. Majority 2008 r2 though.

The 2012 starts annoying me before its even installed. I guess it is time to move to 2012. 2008 is getting a bit old now.

Ploppy2k3 · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:34

I would go with 2012 R2. Most of our estate is now on this and to be honest it is a massive improvement over 2008 r2

anything I don't mind · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:38

Looks like I am the only one that has been so slow to move to it then.

Deleted member 138126 · 16 Mar 2015 at 16:46

You just have to get on with it. May take a while to get used to it, but once you are it's fine, honestly.

Ploppy2k3 · 16 Mar 2015 at 17:10

anything I don't mind said:
Looks like I am the only one that has been so slow to move to it then.

nah there are many people who have shunned everything "windows 8" like.

but sever 2012 is a fine OS and incredibly stable

Yamahahahahaha · 16 Mar 2015 at 18:09

2012 R2 mostly. Our SQL 2012 Cluster runs on 2008 R2 but I will be moving it to 2012 R2 when we go to SQL 2014 later this year.

I can't think of a good reason to stay on the earlier versions of Windows, 2012 R2 is just better in every regard.

oli365 said:
It's confusing to work around and even something like terminal services / Remote Desktop services is confusing on 2012!

Like everything Microsoft do - they don't explain any of the good stuff in 2012 R2. Use Server Manager for all your GUI administration. Everything revolves around Server Pools, once you start treating individual VMs as homogenous units it makes a lot more sense.

If you're using Windows 8.1 put the RSAT tools on your computer and marvel at how easy it is to administer all of your servers from your desktop instead of having to log on to each one to do stuff. Throw Powershell 5.0 into the mix and you're cooking on gas.

blueboy2001 · 16 Mar 2015 at 22:45

It took about 3 weeks for 2012 R2 to win me over.

The post above is absolutely spot on - use Server Manager as much as you can, and RSAT saves a lot of time too.

katana6434 · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:34

Everything I install is on Windows 2012 R2 Unless software demands otherwise.

I have no problems with 2012/2012 r2 and think it works really well.

LizardKing · 17 Mar 2015 at 10:46

2012/r2 is a amazing improvement over 2008/r2, if you can get away with using core then its ever better.

I'm starting to get really annoyed by managing 2008 servers now.

GDL · 17 Mar 2015 at 12:42

Same Lizardking. I do love server groups. Life is so much easier with 12/r2.

Vertigo · 17 Mar 2015 at 13:08

Given that 2008 is the same kernel as Vista and 2008R2 the same as Win7, I'm presuming 2012 & 2012R2 are using the Win8 & 8.1 kernels respectively?

I assume that Server 2016 will be early next year and use the Windows 10 kernel.

Prophet · 17 Mar 2015 at 13:11

Hated 2012 to start with, give it a month, now love it.

The Hyper-V technology is coming along nicely too which is a bonus

Aston998 · 17 Mar 2015 at 13:26

i'll go 2012 R2

dhill · 19 Mar 2015 at 09:18

All our new physical servers are running 2012 R2 Datacenter edition, most of which are in a fail-over cluster environment. All our new virtual servers as running 2012 R2 as well.

Prophet · 19 Mar 2015 at 09:39

dhill said:
All our new physical servers are running 2012 R2 Datacenter edition, most of which are in a fail-over cluster environment. All our new virtual servers as running 2012 R2 as well.

Question for you. How well does Hyper-V cope with fail-over? I've read some horror stories about splitbraining which has kept me using VMWare.

dhill · 19 Mar 2015 at 10:00

Prophet said:
Question for you. How well does Hyper-V cope with fail-over? I've read some horror stories about splitbraining which has kept me using VMWare.

We've not had any issues arise as of yet (touch wood) with the fail-over cluster splitbraining at all. To be fair, the cluster has been pretty stable. Although that's not to say that we haven't had issues, but the issues we've had have been more down to the OS as opposed to the cluster itself.

We are also running SQL Server 2014 in a fail-over cluster environment as well, so are running a cluster within a cluster to add an extra complexity to things lol.

We currently have two main fail-over clusters running at the moment;

6 node (IBM x3550) cluster hosting approximately 30-40 virtual servers at present.
5 node (IBM x3650) cluster hosting approximately 70-80 virtual servers at present.

Windows Server 2012 R2

Deleted member 138126

Deleted member 138126