Oh, and the check box that he refers to is ‘Ignore Bandwidth limits if source and destination are on the same subnet’ – which is important if you are BranchCache-ing because you want the peer-to-peer transfers to be faster than your throttled downloads. BranchCache/BITS will automatically limit this to 45Mb/s so it doesn’t flood the local LAN.
Ta Phil From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Phil Wilcock Sent: 29 May 2015 14:51 To: [email protected] Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache It’s just the policy settings. You can set the policy using CM – which then sets the Local Policy for BITS, with a simple schedule of xxx Kbps between these hours and xxx Kbps outside those hours (or unlimited). Later versions of BITS (Win 7 onwards) support the newer policies which are more granular and allow Work Schedules and Maintenance setting etc. http://blogs.msdn.com/b/wmi/archive/2011/02/02/bits-more-flexible-bandwidth-limit-policies.aspx http://blog.tyang.org/2012/05/05/my-observation-on-sccm-clients-bits-settings/ cheers Phil From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Dwayne Allen Sent: 29 May 2015 14:19 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: Re: [mssms] BranchCache Andreas ( or anyone that knows), Can you explain the PS at the end a little more. I'm not familiar with a new way to set BITS speeds in Windows 7. ----- Dwayne Allen [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> (479) 310-0027 On Fri, May 29, 2015 at 3:32 AM, Andreas Hammarskjöld <[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: Man, being late to the party sucks... thought you covered my shift Senior? The One time I am away… grrr. ☺ 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]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of Jason Wallace Sent: den 29 maj 2015 10:14 To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[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 ☺ 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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Roland Janus Sent: 28 May 2015 18:18 To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]> Subject: RE: [mssms] BranchCache Andreas didn’t chime in yet ☺ 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]> [mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Sean Pomeroy Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 17:53 To: [email protected]<mailto:[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]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote: We have 2008R2 On Thu, May 28, 2015 at 11:29 AM, Roland Janus <[email protected]<mailto:[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]> [mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>] On Behalf Of elsalvoz Sent: Donnerstag, 28. Mai 2015 15:27 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
