Server 2008 R2 failover cluster for DFS servers

Question

A new client currently has a couple Server 2008 R2 failover clusters (one at each of their two primary sites) as their two hub DFS locations. I'm confused, and can't see much of a reason for this implementation, which only seems to introduce added complexity
with no real benefits. Here are my reasons:
- At each site, the servers in the failover clusters are on the same server VM farms, hosted on the same SAN's.
- The data hosted on each node of the clusters are not identical. For example, server1 has 25 DFS replicated folders and server2 has 20 replicated folders. In fact, the ~25 folders on server1 are all named <site>-user, and the ~20 folders on server
2 are <site>-data. There appears to be no crossover.
So if the SAN fails, they're screwed. If the VM host fails, they're screwed. Why not just have two DFS servers at each site for redundancy within each site, and replicating with other site DFS servers as needed? I'm not super strong with failover clustering
at all though, so I may easily be missing something.

Answer 1

Hi Steve,
From the description, as you said it seems create more factors which may cause a failure.
Using DFS on cluster could eliminate the possible of a single failing VM. However if the VM host is down, which will still leads to a failure. So actually the risk is still them same as just creating DFS namespace on these 2 VM hosts or any other file server.
Please remember to mark the replies as answers if they help and un-mark them if they provide no help. If you have feedback for TechNet Support, contact [email protected]