I got a response from my manager saying.... "that we looked at Branch Cache before but it is not available to us because we do not have an enterprise license for Windows."
Is that true, do we need an enterprise license? We use the Win7 Pro license that comes on the computers. On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:50 AM, Jason Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: > The answer to that is not often enough. I have had endless discussions > around peoples’ lack of understanding as to how it works > > > > It really is amazing, people just seem to like the idea of having multiple > gigabytes of server storage holding content that they will very often not > use in far flung locations rather than let the systems sort it out for > themselves > > > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *elsalvoz > *Sent:* 28 May 2015 15:42 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] BranchCache > > > > I made it clear that I haven't used that option in SCCM so I would be > wrong person to have a conversation over BCs so my comments are based on > others experiences. > > Having said that, it would be interesting to see in the greater SCCM > community how often is implemented. > > Cesar A > > On May 28, 2015 7:24 AM, "David Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > > Thanks for the feedback. I have one question about a blog post at 2pint. > Has anyone found this to be a problem? Does this mean that for the very > small files within a package all computers will have to go back over the > WAN to a DP to get them? > > Dave > > ==== > > WARNING TEST THIS FIRST OR WE’LL ALL BE DOOMED I TELL YOU! > > BranchCache has a built-in filesize limit, under which it will ignore > content. By default that is set to 64k, which is fine for a lot of > scenarios. > > If, however your content contains lots of small files, (think xml, config > files, sharepoint, web pages, need I go on!?), then you might want to > implement this little registry hack. > > So, go to > HKEY_LOCAL_MACHINE\SYSTEM\ControlSet001\Services\PeerDistKM\Parameters)- on > your BC server. The value that you need to change is *MinContentLength* > > You do need to cycle the BranchCache service for this to take effect so > bear in mind that you will lose your existing BC content hashes and will > have to recreate them. > > Set this to something smaller than the default of 64k, then do some > testing to see if your wee files are indeed being cached – don’t just > throttle it right down straight away! I’ve had it down to 4096 (4k) and it > behaves perfectly well, but be aware that changing this setting can and > will have an effect on BranchCache performance so tread lightly. > > Cheers! > > Phil 2Pint > > > > On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:04 AM, Jason Wallace <[email protected]> > wrote: > > I would have to disagree with you on that. > > > > Branch Cache does indeed work well and performs as expected. There are > certainly some pieces where OneSite and Nomad offer functionality that is > plain not provided within Branch Cache but generally with Branch Cache you > configure it once on the devices and it plain works. While Branch Cache > > > > Regards “intensive development” Branch Cache was introduced in Windows > VISTA and has been included and supported in the Windows family ever > since. The developers have done a good, sound job and the feature is > largely without issue. > > > > A reasonable and responsible recommendation is to evaluate products > alongside other solutions and to propose the solution that best meets your > customer’s budget and needs. > > > > FWIW I have deployed a Branch Cache solution to an estate with 1400 sites > globally and I presently support a CM2012R2 estate of 22,000 devices > running almost exclusively on Branch Cache and an organisation considerably > larger than this with OneSite. > > > > Perhaps you’d like to point out where you feel Branch Cache is inferior > and we can then approach matters constructively > > > > Jason > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *elsalvoz > *Sent:* 28 May 2015 14:27 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] BranchCache > > > > It doesn't work well or as advertised that's why many do not use it, the > return is not worth the headache. This I've heard from colleagues and this > list since I haven't tried it personally in production. > > The recommendation is to use 3rd party tools provider like 1e or adaptiva > that have done intensive development on their tools. > > Cesar A > > On May 28, 2015 6:19 AM, "David Jones" <[email protected]> wrote: > > There is not a whole lot written about this. Is anyone here using it? Your > thoughts? > > > > Dave > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
