In all seriousness, I’ve found that adding more CPU’s to VM’s can actually slow
the machine down in some cases.
________________________________
John Marcum
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
Desktop Architect
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
________________________________
[H_Logo]
From: [email protected] [mailto:[email protected]] On
Behalf Of John Aubrey
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 7:13 AM
To: [email protected]
Subject: RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
No one will ever suspect the SCCM box is bitminning……
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Marcum, John
Sent: Friday, October 9, 2015 8:05 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
I hope this is a typo, “box has 24 vCPU”
________________________________
John Marcum
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
Desktop Architect
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
________________________________
[H_Logo]
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife
Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2015 3:23 PM
To: '[email protected]'
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>>
Subject: RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
We have around 3100 users, around 3600 or so client computers and around 400
servers. All on one SCCM box, including SQL. At the moment, I’m on 2012 SP1,
box has 24 vCPU, and 32GB RAM.
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gailfus, Nick
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 9:49 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: Re: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
I was mainly basing the 500 GB on that drives don't come much smaller these
days. If I am not mistaken, a RAID 10 array of four 250 GB drives gives me
about 500 GB of usable space. I would end up housing the content either on a
separate server or on a separate drive on the same server.
Those of you who have virtualized SCCM, do you have a separate VM running SQL
on the same host hardware or run it on the same VM? Should I split some of the
SCCM server roles into separate VMs? I do plan on having Software Update Point
on a separate server.
Nick Gailfus
Computer Technician
p. 602.953.2933 f. 602.953.0831
[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>|
www.leonagroup.com<http://www.leonagroup.com/>
[Image removed by sender.]
On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Sherry Kissinger
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
"At least 500 GB for database on a RAID 10 array"
I *think* what you mean is something like using that 500gb sort of like this
(note I'm not saying this is exactly what you'd do... just something sort of
like this -ish):
200GB on Partition 1 for D: drive for the <installed location> of CM, where the
inboxes will be.
200GB on Partition 2 for the E: drive for the Database (mdf file)
100gb on Partition 3 for the F: drive for tempdb and tx files.
(and you'll still have a separate partition of 500gb or 1 TB or whatever,
depending upon how much you have in content that will be devoted to the
contentlib). This is ASSUMING that the actual source files for your content
are over on <ThisOtherServer>\WhereWeKeepContentSourceFiles. If the source
files for your content (images, packages, apps) will be on the same server,
then you might need another partition to house the source files.
fyi, on a primary w/ just about 100k clients, the actual db size here is 377gb
(our disks that hold mdf/ndf/log files are configured to grow to about double
that, jic). And I have a lot of custom inventory things turned on. but we ARE
truncating all the history tables daily, to keep db size down, too. So the
_HIST tables are cleared every night.
http://www.mnscug.org/blogs/sherry-kissinger/357-configmgr-2012-truncate-history-tables
On Thursday, October 8, 2015 7:32 AM, Jimmy Martin
<[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>> wrote:
I have ~20k clients and db size around 60gb and I have a LOT turned on in
inventory, primary=8 cores, 32gb ram, sql local, tuned to have 5 procs and half
the mem, all virtualized on hyperv.
Jimmy Martin
(901) 227-8209<tel:%28901%29%20227-8209>
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>]
On Behalf Of Marcum, John
Sent: Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:15 AM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
500 GB for the database is a bit much. ☺
________________________________
John Marcum
MCITP, MCTS, MCSA
Desktop Architect
Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP
________________________________
[H_Logo]
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Jason Sandys
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:34 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
Physical vs. Virtual = IO, IO, IO. Over-subscription of hardware is very common
in virtualization. If “they” can guarantee high IO levels (storage and network
primarily) and dedicated RAM, then it’s somewhat moot and virtual will work
fine and has the advantage of being hardware independent. Using virtual though
is sometimes more expensive for ConfigMgr because many orgs only have
high-speed disks available for their VMs. This is great for many things, but
the large amounts of space ConfigMgr uses for the content library do not need
to be on high-speed disks and thus it’s a waste of money to use high-speed
disks for this.
J
From: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
[mailto:[email protected]] On Behalf Of Gailfus, Nick
Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:24 PM
To: [email protected]<mailto:[email protected]>
Subject: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs
I have been tasked with migrating our two stand alone primary SCCM 2012 sites
into one site to manage the whole company. Right now our two IT teams in
different parts of the country built and operate our own SCCM. I have pushed
to merge into one primary for the whole company. What I am inquiring on is the
hardware. While looking at this page here
https://technet.microsoft.com/en-us/library/hh846235.aspx I have considered a
physical server, much like what we are currently running with each addtional
RAM. At our last count for our volume licensing we have about 7500 clients and
servers. I would like to build this site to handle at least 10,000 for growth.
The specs I proposed was
* 8 cores
* 32 GB of RAM
* At least 500 GB for database on a RAID 10 array
* Addition RAID array for content.
I planned on having SQL run on the server as well. My boss chimed back asking
why am I considering physical over virtual. We would have about 80
distribution points as well under this primary. I did propose that the
software update point run on a separate server and that server can be a VM. So
my questions are.
* Are these specs enough or too much?
* Would virtualizing work with 10,000 clients?
* Are there any good methods of calculating hardware needs?
Nick
________________________________
Confidentiality Notice: This e-mail is from a law firm and may be protected by
the attorney-client or work product privileges. If you have received this
message in error, please notify the sender by replying to this e-mail and then
delete it from your computer.
This message and any files transmitted with it may contain legally privileged,
confidential, or proprietary information. If you are not the intended recipient
of this message, you are not permitted to use, copy, or forward it, in whole or
in part without the express consent of the sender. Please notify the sender of
the error by reply email, disregard the foregoing messages, and delete it
immediately.
P Please consider the environment before printing this email...
