Hmm this design will basically cover all of Canada. The wan connections range from 500 MB – to 40MB.
In one domain for example – we have had the network upgraded over the years. So in the 1 2007 environment (old design) we have 1 primary and 3 child sights. 2 of the sites now have 500 MB connections and 1 has a 40MB. The counts are pretty small now a days since the company has offshored or outsourced 2/3rds of the company. We are looking at under 1000 across the 40MB connection. I’m still learning more about network across the other domains. So Secondary sites – if we had a couple 1000 systems and they run across 40 MB connections or even the 500MB wouldn’t we want all our clients to hit an MP closer and send as little traffic across as possible? SCCM isn’t the only thing using those pipes of course so I’m worried about sucking up too much bandwidth. THE DP’s will prevent lots of that of course.. but I was just thinking about inventory and all the other client traffic. I know the other SCCM Sites have network concerns when doing larger deployments or even client installs. I”ve never had any issues sending massive packages or cranking up all my client settings like inventory and discovery. From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys Sent: September-14-16 3:52 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com Subject: [mssms] RE: 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child sites ? Secondary sites are about remote locations and bandwidth usage only, not domains or political boundaries. Because of SQL replication, you also can’t include a secondary site in an untrusted domain. Thus, your use of secondary sites should be based entirely upon your network topology, client, counts at locations, and bandwidth to those locations. J From: listsad...@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com> [mailto:listsad...@lists.myitforum.com] On Behalf Of Burke, John Sent: Wednesday, September 14, 2016 12:44 PM To: mssms@lists.myitforum.com<mailto:mssms@lists.myitforum.com> Subject: [mssms] 2012 and Current Branch - no need for secondary or child sites ? Hi, We run 2007 and we with a Primary and 2 child secondary sites we use for proxy management points. At the time we did this because of the slower links we didn’t want to congest. We are being told 2012 and current branch we are moving to, we can flatten it. I’m just wondering if there is no value now to secondary sites to have clients “closer” to management points anymore? We only have 7k or so. Used to have 15 to 20k clients. Larger project is going to be up to 70k clients across 3 domains. Right off top of my head I was thinking 1 primary with a secondary for each of the smaller companies and separate domains but now I’m questioning all that. Thoughts?
