Whilst on the subject of Hypervisors has anyone been using KVM ? I've had some odd nic troubles with SCCM, especially when doing a build and capture. It builds the machine fine: installs windows, then when it comes to the capture it reboots back into the same boot image it used initially to install windows and it doesn't get an IP address (DHCP obviously)
On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 9:24 PM, Jason Sandys <[email protected]> wrote: > **I** would always recommend Hyper-V over VMWare for any solution ;-) > > > > There’s nothing **wrong** with VMWare necessarily and no reason not to > use it if that’s what your organization has standardized on. Just like all > choices and solutions, it’s good to be aware of limitations and caveats > like this though so that you can account for them as necessary. Thus, as > John pointed out, make sure you use the right number of CPUs and not more. > This make take some trial and error to discover though. > > > > J > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Gailfus, Nick > *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 1:09 PM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* Re: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs > > > > Jason, > > > > So you would suggest Hyper-V over VMWare to host the SCCM? > > > Nick Gailfus > Computer Technician > p. 602.953.2933 f. 602.953.0831 > [email protected] <[email protected]>| www.leonagroup.com > > > > On Fri, Oct 9, 2015 at 11:05 AM, Jason Sandys <[email protected]> wrote: > > Actually, replace the word hypervisor with VMWare ESX here – Hyper-V does > not have this limitation. This is a result of the gang scheduling > methodology that VMWare uses. > > > > J > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marcum, John > *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 8:43 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs > > > > Exactly ;-) > > > * ------------------------------ * > > * John Marcum* > > MCITP, MCTS, MCSA > * Desktop Architect* > > * Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: H_Logo] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Conrad Jones > *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 7:32 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs > > > > The hypervisor has to wait until that number of cores are available to > schedule the vm to actually work so, the higher the number of vcpus the > longer it is likely to have to wait to actually do work. > > On 9 Oct 2015 1:26 p.m., "Marcum, John" <[email protected]> wrote: > > 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* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: 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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Marcum, John > *Sent:* Friday, October 9, 2015 8:05 AM > *To:* [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* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: H_Logo] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Heaton, Joseph@Wildlife > *Sent:* Thursday, October 8, 2015 3:23 PM > *To:* '[email protected]' <[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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Gailfus, Nick > *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 9:49 AM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>| www.leonagroup.com > > [image: Image removed by sender.] > > > > On Thu, Oct 8, 2015 at 6:08 AM, Sherry Kissinger < > [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]> > 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 > > > > *From:* [email protected] [mailto: > [email protected]] *On Behalf Of *Marcum, John > *Sent:* Thursday, October 08, 2015 7:15 AM > *To:* [email protected] > *Subject:* RE: [mssms] New SCCM 2012 R2 Primary Site Hardware Specs > > > > 500 GB for the database is a bit much. J > > > * ------------------------------ * > > * John Marcum* > > MCITP, MCTS, MCSA > * Desktop Architect* > > * Bradley Arant Boult Cummings LLP* > * ------------------------------ * > > > > [image: H_Logo] > > > > *From:* [email protected] [ > mailto:[email protected] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Jason Sandys > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:34 PM > *To:* [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] <[email protected]>] *On > Behalf Of *Gailfus, Nick > *Sent:* Wednesday, October 7, 2015 2:24 PM > *To:* [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...* > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > > >
