Yes. Not used it yet and remembered it after my email, I just used Statgen from them on a project - customer loved it.
Next we'll be looking at their content location toolset and building a baseline around it. > On 28 May 2015, at 16:11, David Jones <[email protected]> wrote: > > I saw this on 2Pint for free regarding SCCM reporting... > > http://2pintsoftware.com/all-products/ > > > > > >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 10:47 AM, Jason Wallace <[email protected]> wrote: >> Yeah – that’s one of the pains – the only way you really CAN tell is by >> checking out the perfmon counters on the clients themselves. >> >> >> >> I guess that as that data is WMI’able you could gather it somehow >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] >> On Behalf Of Steve Whitcher >> Sent: 28 May 2015 15:38 >> To: [email protected] >> Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> I have branchcache enabled on my distribution points here, although honestly >> I don't have any measurements of how much WAN traffic it saves us. I know >> it's used, as when I have occasion to go through client logs to troubleshoot >> a deployment I sometimes see log entries that show it using branchcache for >> packages. >> >> >> >> I probably should try to figure out just exactly how much data is being >> distributed by branchcache instead of over the WAN, but at best that's a >> project for the "spare time" list, and that's a long list. >> >> >> >> Steve >> >> >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 9:23 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 >> > >
