Which server scheme is better to choose?

Question

1C

Which of the two server schemes below is still better for 1C, where there are 5 bases, two platforms and up to 45 users?
1 - Terminal + Server 1C + MSSQL, all on different machines.
2 - Terminal + cluster of two servers in which 1C server and MSSQL.
External points of failure: storage, switch, DC.
In the first case, the points of failure are storage, Switch, Terminal, Server 1C, MSSQL. But according to the idea, it should work more cheerfully.
In the second point of failure is DC, switch, terminal and SHD. But the question arises with HASP keys.

Answer 1

A cluster of 2 1C servers will help balance the load, but without a sql server cluster, this add-on is useless - the sql server will fail - the 1C cluster will be useless.
Same with the terminal. The terminal will fail, it will not matter to everyone that the 1C server is running, and the sql server too, users will not be able to enter the database ?! "That means nothing is working."
A lot also depends on the hardware, whether the "cloud" (hypervisors) is used as a layer between them. De facto, in terms of speed, the fastest option for 45 users: terminal + server (1C server + ms sql server in "shared memory" mode and loading data and indexes into RAM). Then it's all about reservations. You can do without a domain if you write ip addresses everywhere, instead of dns names,

Answer 2

If such a question arises, then there should not be a single point of failure in the system at all.
Look for a way to reserve storage and network infrastructure.
DC is a Domain Controller? Book first!