Thanks for the answers so far. On the main topic the question was about software update point and not management point I mistyped while talking about MPs to a collegue.
Anyway, I agree with you. 5k machine in a subnet will be a pain in the ass to manage regarding networking but that's a condition that I can't bypass unfortunately. And that's not my job to tweak that part so I'll let them do the job as good as they can. Le 2 juil. 2015 19:11, "Andreas Hammarskjöld" <[email protected]> a écrit : > Nah, we are too old Todd! J These days the switches are better and so is > the OS’s, so not spamming much. Not really any reasons to have it like we > did before with a /24 mask, the fancy switch HW got it all sorted. The only > reason left is the fault tolerance, like a piece of kit going haywire… > > > > So a 5000 subnet is not unreal, it’s just not good if the network goes > bananas from bad HW/SW. Think about a 1000 nodes are common these days on > campus like networks. > > > > //A > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Miller, Todd > *Sent:* den 2 juli 2015 18:35 > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] [sccm 2012] multiple sup for a primary > > > > Do you think it is possible to have a working subnet that has 5000 > clients? I would think the broadcast traffic alone from 5K clients would > chew up a large percent of the network bandwidth. > > That’s not an SCCM problem, but on the other hand you are spending time > engineering the SCCM stuff to handle a network topology that I don’t think > will work. I am not a network engineer, so honestly I don’t know what I am > talking about. But it sounds unfeasible to me. > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Sherry Kissinger > *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:09 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] [sccm 2012] multiple sup for a primary > > > > For the MPs, that's now available with that AllowedMPs regkey (if you have > that version or higher of CM12 & CU). For SUPs... you could still use > this: http://www.smsmarshall.com/Pages/LocationAware.aspx which was > written before the update for CM12 which allowed for the MP preference to > be set. > > > > > > > > On Thursday, July 2, 2015 9:39 AM, Daniel Ratliff <[email protected]> > wrote: > > > > Not sure about the rest but you can control the MP that clients talk to, > but there are a few caveats. > > > > 2012 R2 CU3 or higher: Use the AllowedMPs reg key > > > http://blogs.technet.com/b/jchalfant/archive/2014/09/22/management-point-affinity-added-in-configmgr-2012-r2-cu3.aspx > > > > 2012 R2 SP1 or higher: Use the MP boundaries > > http://www.systemcenterdudes.com/sccm-2012-r2-sp1-new-features/ > > > > *Daniel Ratliff* > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Jeremy Sihassen > *Sent:* Thursday, July 02, 2015 10:15 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* [mssms] [sccm 2012] multiple sup for a primary > > > > Hi everyone, > > I have a question about implementing several SUP attached to the same > primary server. > > The goal would be to avoid clients to connect to a random SUP and avoid > loading the network link between a subnet and the Datacenter. > > Is it possible to force a client to connect to a specific management > point? > > A secondary server would be the easiest option but I dislike this option > and we'll probably get more than 5k client on this subnet by the end of the > year which would imply getting another secondary server. > > Thanks in advance. > > > > > The information transmitted is intended only for the person or entity to > which it is addressed > and may contain CONFIDENTIAL material. If you receive this > material/information in error, > please contact the sender and delete or destroy the material/information. > > > > > > > > > ------------------------------ > > Notice: This UI Health Care e-mail (including attachments) is covered by > the Electronic Communications Privacy Act, 18 U.S.C. 2510-2521, is > confidential and may be legally privileged. If you are not the intended > recipient, you are hereby notified that any retention, dissemination, > distribution, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. > Please reply to the sender that you have received the message in error, > then delete it. Thank you. > ------------------------------ > > > >
