The argument against CSVs.

There's been a lot of buzz around the capability of Windows Server 2008R2's ability to utilize Cluster Shared Volumes (CSVs). CSVs provide the ability to use a single LUN in clustered Hyper-V deployments. They grant better space utilization, easier management, and the file-lock approach (as opposed the LUN lock) allows for some amazing capabilities. In most situations, this is ideal. There are some situations, however, where CSVs don't make sense. What if you're using the advanced capabilities of your storage devices to mirror your data to another site? In the CSV scenario, you have an all or nothing DR scenario. But if you're using a hot/hot site recovery design, you may just want to use the multi-site capacity to handle individual machine hard fails. Or you may want to move a department and its servers from one site to another. In this case, individual LUNs can provide that functionality. While I realize that most environments don't need these capabilities, they can be very attractive to more dynamic companies who wish to have a fast-up DR scenario.