Oops, didn't see Jason's last message before sending that last email. So it IS just the catalog that you're talking about using branchcache for on the SUP. I hadn't considered that the catalog downloads might be enough to cause issues.
On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 5:55 AM, Steve Whitcher <[email protected]> wrote: > Ok, this may be a silly question, but how does a SUP use branchcache? The > SUP doesn't actually distribute the patches to the PC's, it just contains > the catalog of updates that the clients check against, correct? > > > > On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 4:50 AM, Andreas Hammarskjöld < > [email protected]> wrote: > >> Don’t think hashes are managed by CM at all on the DP’s… but not 100% >> on that. Will check when I am in the lab. >> >> >> >> So Win7 and Server 2012 will allow the server to instruct the clients of >> available hashes. But the clients are too dumb to get it. So you need to >> generate the hashes if you want better stats. >> >> >> >> If the catalog is downloaded using BITS it will be BranchCache enabled if >> the SUP has BC feature on it. And if you have multiple SUPs you need to >> align the secret key, just like the DPs(?). Is the catalog downloaded using >> BITS? >> >> >> >> //A >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Jason Wallace >> *Sent:* den 29 maj 2015 11:28 >> >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> Brilliant again Andreas >> >> >> >> Not *quite* what I was asking. The customer has BC enabled across all >> of their DPs in the site (all DPs in the site have their secret managed by >> CM anyhow don’t they?) and that is working well. This customer is using >> Server 2012 and Win7 so we are good on the download piece. >> >> >> >> It’s not the patches themselves that I am concerned about at this point >> but the initial catalog download from the software update point which is >> causing the customer some pain. If they enable BC on the SUP will that >> help out any? If so do I need to worry about forcing the secret to be the >> same on the SUPs or am I good to just allow BC to manage it? This customer >> has multiple SUPs in their site >> >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Andreas Hammarskjöld >> *Sent:* 29 May 2015 10:19 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> It’s a bit more complicated than what we have said…. >> >> >> >> So on Win8 with Server 2012 the clients will detect that no hash is >> available (we are the first client in the ENTIRE enterprise to get the >> patch) and starting pulling down the data. Server then catches up and >> creates the hash and says, “Hey buddy, here’s the hash you asked for!”. The >> client then gets the hash and continues to download data. This means that >> from that point, it can share data downloaded AFTER it got the hash with >> other clients. So this means that most clients gets the hash, even if 3000 >> machines hits the DP at the same time. So if this is the case, I would >> leave it up to the DP to create the hashes as it sees fit. >> >> >> >> Windows 7 and Server 2008R2 is a different story. If there is no hash, >> clients will never go back to BranchCaching. So the hash is crucial at >> download start. Here I would script a fake generated GET with the right >> headers to force the server to create them. We do this today with a few >> different tools, PowerShell and .exe’s like our free tool HashiBashi. But >> if there are a lot of Win2Kr2 people asking for it we should clean that >> story up and make it downloadable. At server startup the DP then >> re-iterates the packages and creates the hashes, so they are ready when the >> clients come in. Plz let us know if that is needed. >> >> >> >> It’s really the BranchCache service integrated with IIS that creates the >> hash, so as long as the BranchCache FEATURE (not the ROLE) is enabled on >> the box (DP) it will create hashes if the request has the PEERDIST header. >> >> >> >> //A >> >> >> >> Ps. If you have multiple DP’s for the same bunch of clients you need to >> use the same secret key on all the servers, otherwise the hashes will be >> different and clients cannot share content unless the hash matches. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Jason Wallace >> *Sent:* den 29 maj 2015 11:06 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> Hi again Andreas >> >> >> >> On the SUP piece when a site has more than one SUP do you just allow >> BranchCache to calculate the hash-key or do you force it to be the same (as >> would CM for the DPs) or does it not matter? >> >> >> >> Jason >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Andreas Hammarskjöld >> *Sent:* 29 May 2015 09:32 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> Man, being late to the party sucks... thought you covered my shift >> Senior? The One time I am away… grrr. J >> >> >> >> So a Pro machines has BITS had PeerDist-Common-BITS-Client-Enabled >> license info set. Which means that BITS will try to use the BITS API (Which >> is available in full) on a Pro Machine. >> >> >> >> Pure HTTP(s) connections on Enterprise that goes through winhttp.dll or >> wininet.dll will be BranchCache aware out of the box. So intranet/extranet >> to any BranchCache aware server will use BranchCache. .Net is not using >> that, so will not use BranchCache at all. >> >> >> >> BranchCachi enabling the SUP is a major win, especially on Win8/2012, as >> most content is the same so de-dup kicks in. In our labs we see about 70% >> reduction in transfer rate as content is already downloaded in the de-dup >> aware cache. So only 30% data will be downloaded, of course using >> BranchCache its only downloaded once. >> >> >> >> So 20 machines pulling down 1gig of patches without BC equals 20gig, >> right. >> >> >> >> With BC 70% is already down there, so only 300meg needs to be >> transferred. Which is done by one or two clients and then shared. It’s like >> magic. 300 MB is doable over a slow link, 20GB not so much… >> >> >> >> //Andreas >> >> >> >> Ps. Another thing, never use the BITS policy in ConfigMgr if you are >> using BranchCache. It’s using an old XP compatible schedule which cripples >> BC intra-LAN transfers to go at the same speed as BITS, major booboo. Use >> the new win7 policy with the check box to allow full speed intra-LAN. BC >> will lower transfer rate automagically to 45Mb/s to ensure sharing hosts >> are not overwhelmed. >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Jason Wallace >> *Sent:* den 29 maj 2015 10:14 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> >> Hi Phil >> >> >> >> Thanks for the correction on protocol. To explain (and this is my >> understanding amid the confusion that is the documentation) what I was >> trying to say: >> >> >> >> The functional difference between Pro and Enterprise is that in >> Enterprise Branchcache is able to leverage BITS over SMB while in Pro this >> is limited to just HTTP. Of course this is all pretty much irrelevant for >> CM operation as the content is accessed from a DP via HTTP. >> >> >> >> One thing that my BranchCache customer has not done is to implement this >> on their SUPs. What's your take on doing this? >> >> >> >> >> On 28 May 2015, at 22:50, Phil Wilcock <[email protected]> wrote: >> >> Phew! Hate getting to a thread late.. >> >> >> >> Interesting reading down this thread. What it does highlight is the way >> that BranchCache is misunderstood – and I think that MS must shoulder some >> of the blame for that J >> >> >> >> So, yes it works fine across many thousands of sites. >> >> And yes, Server 2012 works better than 2008 as a content server – with >> 2012 you get the added bonus of Dedup + BranchCache too. >> >> It works fine on Windows Pro versions, because it is BITS (not http) that >> is ‘BranchCache aware’ – and it is BITS that SCCM uses so you’re fine. >> >> You can also use it in TS/OSD/WinPE (with some free tools from us – we >> just added Win10 support too) >> >> If you have Win 7 clients with Server 2012 it’s not quite as efficient >> (V1 hashing isn’t as efficient as V2 (Win8.x) hashing) but still works fine. >> >> Yes tiny files have to be retrieved over the WAN as there’s a tradeoff in >> efficiency – but as the blog states, it can be tweaked and works fine. >> >> >> >> Finally – feel free to email me offline if you have any Q’s around >> BranchCache/BITS etc. >> >> >> >> Cheers >> >> >> >> Phil >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Roland Janus >> *Sent:* 28 May 2015 18:18 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* RE: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> Andreas didn’t chime in yet J >> >> >> >> Basically on 2008 >> >> >> >> 1. If there is no hash calculated yet (which is required), the first >> client triggers the calculation when downloading (into SCCM cache), doesn’t >> populate branchcache >> >> 2. The 2nd client downloads into the cache and sccm >> >> 3. The 3rd client can use the 2nd >> >> 4. The first will never have it unless it has to download again. >> >> >> >> You see? >> >> >> >> Worst of all. Once the server is rebooted, the hash is gone, start over… >> >> Whatever they were thinking then. >> >> >> >> 2012 doesn’t do that. >> >> >> >> Overall, it’s basically a no brainer once implemented and it will save (a >> lot of) bandwidth potentially. >> >> >> >> -R >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> *From:* [email protected] [ >> mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On >> Behalf Of *Sean Pomeroy >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 17:53 >> *To:* [email protected] >> *Subject:* Re: [mssms] BranchCache >> >> >> >> What does server 2008 R2 vs 2012 have to do with it? >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:41 AM David Jones <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> We have 2008R2 >> >> >> >> On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Roland Janus <[email protected]> >> wrote: >> >> Most importantly: While windows 7 is fine, you really need server 2012 >> for the DPs. >> >> If you’re stuck with 2008, that’s another story. >> >> >> >> -R >> >> *From:* [email protected] [mailto: >> [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *elsalvoz >> *Sent:* Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 15:27 >> >> >> *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 >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >> >
