That is not entirely accurate. I think that you will find that Branch Cache supports HTTP access in Pro. It is this that you will use in CM
> On 28 May 2015, at 16:38, Lindenfeld, Ivan <[email protected]> wrote: > > You must be licensed for Enterprise Windows, vs. Professional. The > Enterprise bits have Branch Cache, Bitlocker Pro, DirectAccess where the Pro > bits do not. > > From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] > On Behalf Of David Jones > Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 11:08 AM > To: [email protected] > Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache > > 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 > > > > > > > > > > NOTICE: The information contained in this message is proprietary and/or > confidential and may be privileged. If you are not the intended recipient of > this communication, you are hereby notified to: (i) delete the message and > all copies; (ii) do not disclose, distribute or use the message in any > manner; and (iii) notify the sender immediately.
