Indeed.
I don’t doubt that the other products are “better” but I do question whether they are better enough to justify the additional license costs, support costs and training costs of using an additional company. Branch Cache provides a small subset of the functionality of the partner solutions but if all the customer wants or needs is download optimisation and peer caching then Branch Cache is quite likely to be adequate and free. Moreover in addition to offering these services to your Sharepoint and file server based infrastructure, and as Azure type services are adopted those too. Why would you exclude Branch Cache in favour of a CM only based solution for which you have to pay good money? If however your customer needs to have local PXE boot without servers, they need to be able to suppress unnecessary downloads such as regular policy updates, they need to be able to suppress uploads of hardware and software inventory, they want to have not only peer read but peer write to the local store, they have a dynamic and complex network structure and don’t have the processes to keep boundaries updated in CM then your customer should look at the partner solutions. My BranchCache based customer is aware that all that they are getting is the bandwidth management piece and this has allowed them to massively simplify their old CM2007 design and remove servers from their environment, saving on management and license costs and they are very happy with this. The customer that I have with a partner solution I would not dream of suggesting the use of BranchCache for. My third customer, even though they have a branch based network they really have no interest in anything but servers to host this content. If you are planning on implementing Branch Cache, or evaluating it then do spend time looking at the 2pint resources which are really very good indeed and don’t forget to check the peer caching checkbox :) If you are planning on implementing a non-Branch Cache Alternate Content Provider peer caching solution then don’t forget to uncheck the peer caching checkbox in the CM console :) Jason From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Wallace Sent: 28 May 2015 15:06 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache So have you ACTUALLY used Branch Cache or are you just listening to what others tell you? 1e wrote a very good comparison white paper between Branch Cache and Nomad, concluding of course that their product was “better” but that Branch Cache was a good solution. From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of elsalvoz Sent: 28 May 2015 15:01 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache It would be a good poll to take. Maybe I haven't talked to correct people. Cesar A On May 28, 2015 6:49 AM, "Jason Sandys" <[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: The 2Pint guys will vehemently disagree with you on this. BranchCache can work quite well and I’m sure they will share with you many success stories (offline of course). I also know of a handful including a large 35,000 seat energy company. J From: [email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected] <mailto:[email protected]> ] On Behalf Of elsalvoz Sent: Thursday, May 28, 2015 8:27 AM To: [email protected] <mailto:[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] <mailto:[email protected]> > wrote: There is not a whole lot written about this. Is anyone here using it? Your thoughts? Dave
