I have recently moved into a new group of DBA and I am the odd-man out on some architectural decisions and I am struggling to defend my side of the argument. The company is upgrading to SQL 2012 from SQL 2008 R2. In my previous experiences with this I have set up Availability Groups on Windows Server 2012(R2) with an Active/Sync Replica in Primary Data Center and an ASYNC replica in the Second Data Center with excellent results in terms of performance and high availability.
The load of the databases require 3 active servers. I understand the negative of the AlwaysON solution is storage footprint not failing over between servers but that is not a worry.
My plan was have 9 Servers -
3 SYNC REPLICA
3 ASYNC REPLICA in Second Data Center
The Alternative Plan requires the same amount of Servers -
6 NODE FCI in Primary Data Center, 3 Node FCI in Secondary Data center.
My two main questions I am trying to ask are -
1) What are the negative aspects of having SQL 2012 installed on WINDOWS 2008 R2?
2) What are the positive aspects if any besides storage footprint about not using Availability Groups and sticking with an "oldschool" method of FCI and Mirroring?